November 2002
posts
Source of Joss quote about giving fans what they
need? -- Gwyn, 12:09:54 11/16/02 Sat
Does anyone know the source of the often mentioned statement
by Joss Whedon that he doesn't give fans what they want but
what they need? I need a source to quote it for a paper?
[> Re: Source of Joss quote about giving fans what
they need? -- Darby, 13:06:19 11/16/02 Sat
At the bottom of
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive2002/020503d.html
Most other sources using this quote attribute it to this
original, but he has said it elsewhere...
Another spot, with lots of quotes:
http://www.slayage.tv/whedonisms.htm
and the source of that:
http://www.theonionavclub.com/avclub3731/avfeature_3731.html
It's amazing what googling will do for you!
[> [> Re: Source of Joss quote about giving fans
what they need? -- Gwyn, 13:37:53 11/16/02 Sat
Thanks for taking the time to track this down for me....
[> [> Re: Source of Joss quote about giving fans
what they need? -- Gwyn, 19:24:29 11/16/02 Sat
Would you happen to know the source of Jane Espenson's
quote of how they break an episode..by asking three
questions?
What's the allegory of it?
What's the funny of it?
What's the Buffy of it?
Google hates me...I've tried but can't turn the source
up...
[> [> Source of Espenson quote -- Gwyn,
19:28:04 11/16/02 Sat
I meant to change the heading for my last post! I need this
source and the paper is finished...so I'm desperate!
It is the JE quote about the 3 questions addressed in every
episode....
What's the allegory of it?
What's the funny of it?
What's the Buffy of it?
[> [> [> Sorry -- Darby, 05:39:58
11/17/02 Sun
I've read most of the interviews available and I don't know
that one. Maybe it's on one of the DVD commentaries that
haven't been released in the US but have been transcribed
here - I did a quick archives search and couldn't come up
with anything, though. It could also be Succubus Club
transcripts - those don't seem to be accessible to
Google.
[> [> [> Re: Source of Espenson
quote&sorry -- aliera, 07:48:00 11/17/02 Sun
I tried also Gwyn; do you remember anything else about the
source and is it possible it was someone other than JE?
[> [> [> [> Source can be found on --
shadowkat, 09:49:16 11/17/02 Sun
www.slayage.com - try Jane Espenson's article on
writing a television episode - it was on the Firefly
site.
Also check Spoiler Trollop Board - Rufus posted it there as
well. But orignal place and copyright is ME and the Firefly
site.
[> [> [> [> [> Nope isn't in that
one..... -- Rufus, 13:48:59 11/17/02 Sun
I've seen that article and that quote isn't in it.
[> [> [> [> [> Aaarggh!! If Rufus doesn't
know it I'm doomed! -- Gwyn, 02:49:15 11/18/02
Mon
Thanks for all your help guys...I'm 100% sure it was JE...I
thought it was a Succubus club interview but I could be
wrong....I thought I read it in a transcript...
I knew I would need it one day..it was just such a good
quote.........I'll have to take it
out of the paper if I can't source it.....
The Devil inside -- NickyJean,
12:14:40 11/16/02 Sat
I was curious on your thoughts of the demon inhabiting both
Angel and Spike. When Spike lost his memory I thought it was
odd that his demon, driven by instinct, didn't suffer from
bloodlust or that he didn't releaize any of his vamp traits,
even if he didn't know what they were. (referance to Tubala
Rasa) Spike didn't really go grrr until he was in a fight.
But then in Angel's Spin the Bottle Angel started feeling
the bloodlust with Cordella just because he was with her
alone.
I guess my question would be why would Spike's demon without
the years of experience that Angel has not want to kill the
slayer, just on an instinct basis. Assuming that Spike's
demon knows of Spike's love for Buffy, why would Angel, who
would have more control over his demon feel the need to eat
Cordellia, just a girl/maybe a part demon...? Any
thoughts..
[> Re: The Devil inside -- Finn Mac Cool,
12:22:08 11/16/02 Sat
It takes something to set off the demon into manifesting
itself against it's will. For Angel, it was being alone with
Cordelia while she bared her neck and made some seductive
sounding talk about blood pumping. In his teenage persona,
Angel didn't have the self control to resist vamping out.
Meanwhile, Spike maifested his vampiric traits when he
started to fight the vampire lackeys. I think that if Buffy
had made the same motions and said the same words that
Cordelia had, Spike's bloodlust would have manifested as
well.
Keep this in mind, as well: it has been implied that when
someone loses their memory in the Buffyverse that they
retain subconscious memories. So Spike didn't become all
vampy because his subconscious was still instructing him
based on his couple years of adjustment to the Scooby Gang,
despite the fact that he couldn't consciously remember any
of it.
[> [> Re: The Devil inside somting to add --
Blustar, 19:01:01 11/16/02 Sat
also Spikes DEMON has gotten used to helping the scoobies
and drinking pigs blood.and he has always been willing to
help in his intrest his DEMON was reforming.
Angel on the other hand doesn't need to repress his demon as
strongly ecept whenit comes to the bloodlust a physical
requirement.the demon has been represed by the curse the
soul is in absolute control when it(the soul )is aware
angelous has no say.
if angel has no memory of what might be angelous might have
some subconsious control .
his demon never learned any contorl and sees no need for it
his demon never shows remose or restarint and never even
considered redeaming himself and has fought violently
against it.
spike on the other hand had alttering both his consience and
subconsious urges and only has one person inside who can
have urges.
angel has two a very repressed demon and a guilty soul is
the souled parts memorys are repressed the demons instincts
could be stronger and harded to repress.
Interesting article on Slayage.com (spoiler for 7.6 and
7.7 ) -- Sang, 12:38:37 11/16/02 Sat
There is an article about CwDP on Slayage.com review page.
At the end of the review, there are two paragraphs
discussing about the seal Jonathan and Andrew dug out. I
don't know how reliable this is, but pretty interesting.
"Okay. The seal that Jonathon and Andrew uncovered in the
Sunnydale High basement was a goat-head in a reversed
pentagram. This symbol can be identified as the seal of
Baphomet (not the name J & A gave it, but bear with us).
Originally ascribed to the Knights Templar, it was adopted
by the Church of Satan in 1966. The one noteworthy
adjustment to the image here was that it had signs of the
zodiac around it, instead of the Hebrew letters that spell
Leviathan (Leviathan being the name commonly associated with
a biblical beast that devours you, um, from beneath, but
usually in the ocean). This seal is also associated with the
goat of Mendes, Mendes being a city in ancient Egypt where
fertility worship of Ba'al was practiced.
Ba'al, in his deified form, is known as Nimrod, the Sun God.
Ellen found reference to biblical passages referencing
Nimrod: A mighty hunter before the Lord, and they also
suggest that it was not wild beasts that Nimrod was hunting,
but men. Having hunted them he would enslave them and have a
tyrannical hold over them -- much like a vampire turning out
sires. By Holden¡¯s admission, we know that Spike is out and
siring (assuming again that it¡¯s actually Spike, and not an
imposter). Now, if you¡¯re open to the idea that Joss and
his writers are feeding us tiny hints even when we have
almost no chance of catching them, check this out: At the
beginning of "Him", when Buffy moved Spike into Xander¡¯s
apartment, Xander was of course all too ready to insult
Spike. He always has been, right? It¡¯s not like they¡¯re
friends. But of all the words he could have used to bash our
William with (and you KNOW the X-Man has quite a vocabulary
of clever putdowns), what was his name of choice this
time?
Nimrod."
You can read the full review at the link below
http://slayage.com/reviews/buffy/0707_conversations.html
[> Re: The demon seal - lengthy (spoiler 7.7 ) --
Tyresius, 17:30:00 11/16/02 Sat
An interesting article on the history of the Seal you refer
to is at www.templarh
istory.com/sigil.html
I also found this, which is kinda interesting: Some
historians have claimed that the name "Baphomet" was a
curruption of Old French for Muhammad, whose name is
sometimes spelled Mahomet. While others theorized that
Baphomet was really a corruption of the Arabic term
"Abufihamat" meaning "Father of Understanding."
Although the seal pictured on that website is not an exact
match to the one in Buffy, it does seem very similar - at
least in using the demon/goat head in the pentagram.
I've also found a dozen other names for the figure we saw on
the seal in Buffy - The goat of Mendes, Azazel, and at
times, the image has even represented Satan.
At any rate, the figure on the seal belongs to a class of
Judaic-Christian demons called "se'irim" - which has been
translated as goat-demon, hairy-demons, and he-demons by
different sites I've visited.
As for "one noteworthy adjustment to the image here was
that it had signs of the zodiac around it," I've looked
pretty closely at my tape of CwDP, and I'm not seeing any
signs of the zodiac, just some celtic-y looking paterns.
I can find no references on-line to the "seal of Danzathar"
(what Jonathon and Andrew actually called it) that aren't
specifically buffy-related, so it's probably a creation of
ME - unless I've got the spelling all wrong.
[> [> Re: The demon seal - lengthy (spoiler 7.7
) -- Luna,
18:09:54 11/16/02 Sat
There are clearly the zodiac signs of Taurus (the bull) and
Libra (the scales) Couldnt figure out the one on the
forehead.
Luna
[> [> Since you mentioned seals you may want to
look at this....spoilery speculation -- Rufus,
23:46:46 11/16/02 Sat
There is a Tarot deck based upon Baphomet..BAPHOMET: The
Tarot of the Underworld......and to make you sit up and take
notice......The Seven Seals of The Baphomet Tarot
To really give the writers credit....could there be Seven
Seals that need to be found? That would make it a real
quest.
[> Re: Another link about Nimrod. -- Sang,
06:47:45 11/17/02 Sun
http://www.montana.com/bupc/whores/symbols.html
Above article wrote
- CUPID, the winged-god of love is identified with
Valentine's Day because Cupid is one of Nimrod's Roman
names. The Valentine heart is associated with Valentine's
Day because Nimrod was known in Babylon as "BAAL," which is
a Chaldean word meaning "lord," and is a homonym of the
Chaldean word "BEL" meaning "heart." -
- Nimrod is pictured as the horned and cloven-hoofed SATAN,
who is the DEVIL and hidden god of the underworld. Nimrod is
referred to as the "hidden god" because priests of the
Babylonian mystery religion "hid" the fact that Nimrod
corrupted the teachings of the one true invisible God. They
also "hid" the fact that all the pagan gods were
representations of Nimrod -
It was also interesting that among other names of Nimrod,
you can find Osiris and Dagon.
[> Seal is too ambiguous (Spoiler )Short and long
version -- Deb, 10:12:55 11/17/02 Sun
Short Version: I think grasping onto this one "clue" for the
meaning of what is going on with Spike/Buffy/ Hellmouth,
etc. is really not profitable. This symbol has a long,
muddled history (some of it presented below if you want to
torture yourself) Nimrod is not the only name Holden tosses
out, and there are various other clues presented throughout
the season. The one thing they have in common is another
cosmic battle against chaos, which would include good and
evil and everything else into one universal lump of
spiritual energy. Cosmic battles are used to separate Evil
from Good and thus restore order. I have seen so many
allusions in Buffy to all kinds of stuff that make up our
spiritual soup, I'm just saying symbols are ambiguous and
mostly arbitrary, and they are tied to a culture. To hedge
your bets on one clue........ Let's start talking about this
"Dawn" thing too and see how many dieties we find. The
Christian "God" is a relatively new name from the 3rd
century A.D. and was derived from several other cultures'
"God" names. It's uniqueness is the monotheistic (universal)
breadth. The first, and one of only a very few monotheistic
"creator" gods was in Egypt, for a very short time: The Cult
of Aten -- the one and only god.
Long:
We're talking Temp. Knights here, a centuries old group of
Christian Crusader Warrior Monks who supposedly found the
Holy Grail and first took it to Spain and then on to Upper
Egypt to protect it and hide it. The Masons are related in
some fashion, which could account for the astrological
symbols, and this group also supposedly was founded in Egypt
during the time of Rameses I and II and the building of the
Great Pyramid. The Masons have a rather secrative history,
with their own bloody rituals such as taking the heads of
people who tell their secrets -- another myth among many of
the Mozart Myths, which by the way this whole thing is
beginning to feel like the "Magic Flute" with the "Hero" not
being able to speak, and Nemesis (which Holden also spoke of
-- Buffy: "Is that how you pronouse that?") the "fabulous
winged griffon" whose followers started a morality cult.)
And this associates it with the Egyptian gods, Horus -- of
names and forms -- whose primary job in the incarnation of
Anubis ( claimer of hearts and works in the Hall of Two
Truths where all souls must pass through and pass the heart
test to reach the afterlife) was "opening if the Mouth"
ceremony for his father Osiris and he fought his "evil"
brother Seth for rulership. The 'Opening of the Mouth" was
for protection against "evil." Also watched over cemeteries.
(yes that is with all e's) Ba, early fertility god -- Egypt,
later had a cult at Mendes. Ba came to represent the
spirituality of a deity, often represented by
an animal or as the mortal manifestation of a god as
Pharoah. Baal, represented by a calf or goat, is father of
seven storm god and seven mid-wife goddesses. He was
constantly engaged in chaos. Also fought forces of chaos in
the underworld and is associated with death and
resurrection.
Within the seal are other symbols, Star of Solomon or Star
of David. Solomon supposedly was patriarch of the Masons in
Egypt and is know for his wisdom. Myth has it that he sold
his soul for the gift of wisdom to rule his kingdom. Anyone
with the Star of Solomon in h/her natal chart in an
incarnate.
Then there is Satan, who fell all the way down to the Third
Heaven for his rebellion, and who was placed beneath the
ground when Christians got a hold of him.
Then there is my personal favorite, Marduk, also known by at
least 60-70 other names, one being Merodach (Hebrew) who
engages in primordian cosmic battle. He's also associated
with jens, rather ambiguous morphic beings that work for
good or evil. We know them a genies, but jens don't follow
their rules. (Want to read a fascinatingly intense account
of a ritual to make a jen? Anne Rice's "Servant of the
Bones.")
How about Loki? Not that's he's related. (though probably is
somewhere in time.) I just think Spike would make a good
incarnate Loki.
[> [> Re: Seal is too ambiguous (Spoiler )Short and
long version -- aliera, 12:30:10 11/17/02 Sun
I agree Deb; most of these things seem to be references in
the similar way to how he's using pop culture references to
evoke a certain feeling or connection. It reminds me of some
of the poets who filled their poetry with classical
references that would create a certain connection in the
reader's mind with a known person or story enriching or
adding another layer to the reading.
I do love this aspect of the show and also posts like those
above...it's one of the things I look forward to each week,
like the Sunday crossword.
[> [> ME writers are fans of Film.....so what film
would some of what we are .... -- Rufus, 13:47:23
11/17/02 Sun
talking about like Templars, seals......make one think
of?
[> [> [> Almost any film that has anything to do
with European and Early (6&7 spoilers) -- Deb,
08:27:05 11/18/02 Mon
American history. "Seventh Seal" The Scottish films of the
90's, "The Magic Flute", and King Arthur and Grail film,
horror films, "Star Wars", I even had "Jesus Christ:
Superstar" *pop* into my head during the scene with
Spike/It/Him/Whatever and Buffy in the church. Maybe that's
way they call it the blues....er, pop culture. Perhaps they
are testing new methods of *percuasion* via pop culture and
TV. "The Mummy" last year in Spike's testing. Don't those
beetles (yuck, yuck, yuck) eat flesh? or was that some kind
of "Fear Factor" test? Maybe they ate Spike's flesh and he
came back as someone else, like a dead evil pharoah who was
bloody and so when "Spike" got his soul returned, it wasn't
William at all, but some ancient Egyptian Pharoah's soul? I
never know what is going to happen on Buffy until I see it,
because there are so many allusions. Everyone around here
talks about "Once More With Feeling" and all I've been
singing this season is "Jesus Christ Superstar."
"The Annotated Buffy" Update Announcement/Official "When
She Was Bad" Thread -- Rob,
14:50:20 11/16/02 Sat
Well, after some good and bad time constraints--the good
being a trip to visit my friend at Cornell, the bad being a
huge paper I had to write in, ironically, my philosophy
class--it took me a little while more than I would have
liked to post the latest update at "The Annotated Buffy,"
but now it's all ready for readage! Please enjoy:
Out of Mind, Out of Sight...ANNOTATED!
Now, as I begin my work on...yay!!!...the last season one
episode to annotate, I am opening up the floor for
submissions for the first season two episode annotations--
"When She Was Bad."
Here are the usual info. links:
When
She Was Bad" Transcript
My e-mail
addy
Thanks! And I can't wait to see what everybody has to say
about WSWB, sexy dance and all!
Rob
[> Oops! I goofed on the transcript link... --
Rob, 14:52:42 11/16/02 Sat
I just gave you the "Invisible Girl" link.
Here's the right one:
"When
She Was Bad" Transcript
Sorry!
Rob
[> Re: "The Annotated Buffy" Update
Announcement/Official "When She Was Bad" Thread --
Sophie, 17:47:33 11/16/02 Sat
When She was Bad
So the master's bones were buried in consecrated ground??? I
know the Catholic church prohibits burying bodies of
suicides in consecrated ground, but I would have thought no
vampire bones, also!
Is this the first time we see Angel kill a vampire? I
probably missed one somewhere. But this is, of course,
Angel's big sin – killing another vampire (one of his kind).
Buffy torturing a vampire. This is one of the few times that
we get to see what the torture activity actually is.
The bodies hung upside down, like meat in a freezer at the
butcher shop. The swaying feeling of the bodies is smooth
and rhythmic, dance like, in sharp contrast to the anger and
harsh emotions.
And of course the grinding bones – Jack and the
Beanstalk.
[> [> on consecrated ground -- anom,
23:50:08 11/16/02 Sat
"So the master's bones were buried in consecrated ground???
I know the Catholic church prohibits burying bodies of
suicides in consecrated ground, but I would have thought no
vampire bones, also!"
I thought that was done deliberately to keep him from being
raised.
[> [> [> That's how I interpreted that too.
-- Rob, 00:05:21 11/17/02 Sun
[> [> [> I can just see them going to ask the
Pope, "can we, uh, bury these bones here?" -- Sophie,
18:47:54 11/17/02 Sun
[> Re: "The Annotated Buffy" Update
Announcement/Official "When She Was Bad" Thread --
Alvin, 18:38:30 11/16/02 Sat
I've never posted on one of your annointed threads before,
but since I recently rewatched this one, I'll give it a
try.
What amazes me about this one is how much it resembles
Becoming, showing us how much ME likes the first and last
episodes of a season to parallel each other. For
instance:
1) Both have a big library scene where Buffy insists on
going alone into an obvious trap. In fact all the Scoobies
are in roughly the same positions in both episodes with
Kendra replacing Jenny. (And of course both have the honor
of dying during the season.)
2) Both have Buffy returning to the library to find the
Scoobies have been attacked in her absence with only Xander
remaining. Also, both have Xander blaming Buffy for what
happened.
3) Both have a smoking female vamp used as a messenger. In
WSWB it's because of Buffy's cross; in Becoming because of
sunlight.
4) Both have a Buffy/Angel fight (verbal in WSWB from the
transcript:
Buffy (to Angel): Oh, c'mon! I mean, you must've thought
about it. What would happen if it ever came down to a fight,
you vampire, me the Slayer, I mean, you must've wondered!
Well, why don't we find out?)
5) Both have someone being tortured for information (Giles
in Becoming, female vamp in WSWB)
6) Both have Buffy in a big fight while Xander rescues the
captured Scoobies.
7) Both have a scene where Joyce doesn't understand
Buffy.
8) Both have a group of vampires trying to awaken something
big and powerful, and in both the means is by blood.
9) Both have a vamp who hangs out of the big fight against
Buffy (the Annointed One/Spike).
When I got the season on DVD, I just had to see Becoming
first thing, and then I started on the season from the
beginning so all the parallels jumped out at me. I think
these two have at least as many parallels as Bargaining and
TTG/Grave have.
[> Re: "The Annotated Buffy" Update
Announcement/Official "When She Was Bad" Thread -- KdS,
06:18:48 11/17/02 Sun
Xander: I'm sorry, I can't help myself. Your nose looks
so tasty.
He reaches up with his napkin and gently wipes off her nose.
He takes much longer than he needs to and looks into her
eyes. He brushes his hand against her cheek. After another
moment he starts to move in for a kiss. She responds in kind
and tilts her head. They stop just short of making contact
and linger there a moment. Xander finally begins to pull
back, and when he does he sees a vampire standing on the
other side of the wall. Willow notices his glance and looks,
too. She screams and jumps off of the wall as Xander pulls
her away from the vampire.
Possibly the biggest emotional could-have-been in the
history of the series. What would have been the future for
everyone if W/X had ended up real?
Hank: Okay, then. This is the last of it. (puts another
suitcase on the bed)
As someone pointed out a few weeks back (sorry, can't
remember who) this is actually the only scene in which Hank
Summers appears that is not a hallucination or memory. Is it
possible that Buffy's post-NDE funk was actually what broke
the bond between them?
Hank: She was just, I don't know, um... distant. Not
brooding or sulking, just... there was no connection. The
more time we spent together, the more I felt like she was
nowhere to be seen.
It's not until Season 5 that Buffy explicitly talks about
her lack of emotional connection, but it's interesting that
Hank has exactly the same complaint as Riley.
Joyce: Well, welcome to my world. I haven't been able to
get through to her for so long. I'll just be happy if she
makes it through the school year.
She won't of course.
Cordelia: I mean, they promised me they'd take me to St.
Croix, and then they just decide to go to Tuscany. (exhales)
Art and buildings? I was totally beachless for a month and a
half. No one has suffered like I have. Of course I think
that that kind of adversity builds character. Well, then I
thought, I already have a lot of character. Is it possible
to have too much character?
Probably not deliberate, but this speech is astonishingly
ironic given the development of Cordelia as sin-
eater/Scapegoat of LA in AtS.
The student lounge. Buffy is upstairs on a couch, off in
her own world. Willow and Xander come up the stairs to
her.
Is this the longest dream sequence ever in Buffy?
Giles: Oh, I don't know. I mean, (chuckles) I've killed
you once, it shouldn't be too difficult to do it
again.
That whole Slayer/Watcher death dynamic rears its ugly head
again. Quite possibly forshadowing for Helpless
Buffy: Could you contemplate getting over yourself for a
second? There's no 'us'. Look, Angel, I'm sorry if I was
supposed to spend the summer mooning over you, but I didn't.
I moved on. To the living.
Horribly ironic given current speculation on the board about
Buffy 's emotional arrest over Angel. I know she's supposed
to be self-destructive here, but maybe she should have taken
her own advice...
Snyder: That Summers girl. I smell trouble. I smell
expulsion, and just the faintest aroma of jail.
Yet more Becoming forshadowing.
Angel: You have to trust someone. You can't do this
alone.
Buffy: I trust me.
Angel: You're not as strong as you think.
Buffy: (gives him a challenging look) You think you can take
me?
Angel: What?
Buffy: Oh, c'mon! I mean, you must've thought about it. What
would happen if it ever came down to a fight, you vampire,
me the Slayer, I mean, you must've wondered! Well, why don't
we find out?
Angel: I'm not gonna fight you.
Buffy: Come on! Kick my ass!
Horrible irony for the second-half of the season. Can Buffy
really handle things alone? She can in the short term, as we
see in Becoming II, but it wouldn't work in the long
term (The Wish, Fool For Love).
Buffy: One more time: where are they?
Vampire: You're too late. Your friends are dead.
Buffy: (lifts her back up) Tell me where they are!
Vampire: (laughs) What are you gonna do? Kill me?
Buffy: As a matter of fact... She throws the vampire onto a
pool table.
Buffy: ...yes. (yanks off her necklace) But since I'm not
gonna kill you any time soon, the question becomes...
She drops the cross into the vampire's mouth and covers it
with her hands.
Buffy: ...how are we gonna pass the time till then?
The cross burns in the vampire's mouth, and she shakes her
head. After several seconds Buffy pulls the cross back out.
Buffy: So. One more time.
Although it's been implied on a few other occasions that our
heroes have tortured people when necessary, this is probably
the most explicit example in the series' history. Anybody
who thinks Buffy is insufficiently aware of her own dark
side - this is one of the key pieces of counter-
evidence.
Absalom runs into the burning end and is set ablaze. He
backs up and screams as the flames spread over him. He makes
a last desperate attempt to get Buffy and raises the
sledgehammer over his head, but is too late as the flames
engulf him and instantly burn him up.
There is a very clear inverse proportion between the effect
of flame or sunlight on vampires and their importance as
recurring characters. Compare this scene (and the opening of
Bargaining I) with Redefinition.
Giles: Buffy, you acted wrongly, I admit that. But
believe me, that was hardly the, the worst mistake you'll
ever make. Uh, that wasn't quite as comforting as it was
meant to be.
More foreshadowing for the second half of the season.
Similar to Giles's speech in Innocence.
Collin: I hate that girl.
(Slightly self-indulgent speculation - this is the only time
I found the Anointed One interesting as a character. He does
actually behave childishly here, whereas usually he is
simply an all-EVIL cipher. Given that he was created by a
specialised ritual, and the fact that his personality is
less explicable by the original human than any other
vampire, is it possible that the Anointed One is the only
real example of the Watcher's Council propaganda explanation
of vampires? Is he actually possessed by a powerful,
intelligent demon that has replaced his personality, rather
than the more malleable (or even non-sentient) demons that
possess most vampires?)
[> [> wow, talk about thorough! there's just 1
thing i'd dispute -- anom, 12:19:25 11/17/02 Sun
"As someone pointed out a few weeks back (sorry, can't
remember who) this is actually the only scene in which Hank
Summers appears that is not a hallucination or memory."
He does show up for real at the end of Nightmares. Remember
in the Buffy's-nightmare version he shows up early, in the
middle of the school day? After the nightmares are over, he
comes at the scheduled time, looking happy to see her
(unlike nightmare!Hank), although I don't remember if we see
him do more than wave to her. Still, he does "appear."
[> One small addition -- CW, 18:37:00 11/17/02
Sun
Xander gets the dance he asked for in Prophecy Girl. It's as
sensuous as Xander could have wanted for a first dance. But,
it's not the private moment of happiness he'd hoped for.
Buffy uses him to alienate Angel, and Willow is also
tormented in the process. As the dance ends, she makes it
clear it's all a tease.
[> Re:"When She Was Bad" Annotations (7.7
spoilers) -- ponygirl, 20:51:56 11/17/02 Sun
When She Was Bad is always going to be a sentimental fave
for me. It was the first full episode of BtVS that I ever
saw and it also occasioned my first Buffy-inspired purchase
since I bought a Cibo Matto cd soon after. But it's not just
sentiment that makes me appreciate this ep. in fact recent
season 7 episodes make me realize how many themes of BtVS
had their start in WSWB.
Buffy's "issues": One of the most important themes of the
Buffyverse is that of consequences. Buffy had by any measure
won in Prophecy Girl, she'd defied prophecy, defeated the
Master, and got to go to the dance, yet there was a price.
Buffy's brief death affected her far more than she would
ever admit. It is the start of her isolation from those
closest to her. She had been practiced in concealing things
from her parents before, but now there is an emotional
detachment. It's present in her dealings with with everyone
in this episode, as she deals with an internal struggle by
closing herself off. A pattern that seemed to reach its
apothesis in season 6, but still seems to be ongoing in
season 7.
Buffy's dream of being attacked by Giles depicts Xander and
Willow seemingly unconcerned or unaware of the life and
death struggle Buffy is facing. They are removed from her
problems, whatever they have seen and done for Buffy it just
doesn't compare to her experiences.
It has been discussed on the board before that the Slayer
negotiates the border between different worlds: human/demon,
night/day, good/evil. Nothing underscores this more than the
fact that Buffy has died and yet still lives. It has changed
her, set her apart. The detachment she feels from ordinary
life after this brief death is magnified a hundredfold after
her second death, and her struggle to find meaning in a life
that is undefined by death will inform all of season 6.
Buffy's sexy dance: Her dance with Xander isn't flirtation
or romance, it's about sex, and power. Buffy uses her
sexuality as a weapon: to make Angel jealous, to hurt
Willow, to prove her power over Xander. Interestingly enough
this seems to mark the beginning of the end of Xander's
crush on Buffy. Up until their bump and grind, he had been
unwilling to discuss Buffy's questionable behaviour.
Afterwards it seemed that his idealized vision of Buffy had
been seriously tarnished by her casual use of him -- he's
very quick to turn on her throughout the rest of the
episode. And she never did thank him for saving her
life...
Buffy's confrontation with Angel outside the Bronze isn't
just a challenge to fight, it's a come-on. This connection
that Slayers have between violence and sex is something
Faith will later explain. Buffy also notes in BtVS 7.7 that
vampires have a similiar attitude: "sex and death, and love
and pain, it's all the same damn thing to you."
The penultimate scene in the classroom shows how forgiving
the Scoobies are, and how important their support is to
Buffy. However she does not articulate the problems that led
her to that point, she is instead relieved and allows a
semblance of normalcy to return. But since her conversation
with Holden in 7.7, I suspect that the guilt Buffy felt over
endangering her friends was not something that went away.
Neither does the belief that they do not truly understand
her. Her need for her friends and the isolation imposed upon
her by her calling is a conflict that continues into season
7.
Further note: The name Absalom has both literary and
biblical references. "Absalom, Absalom!" is name of the
Southern Gothic novel by William Faulkner, reputedly one of
his greatest and most difficult books. The source of his
title was the biblical figure Absalom, a son of King David.
He was known as the father of peace. Absalom was killed in
battle and upon hearing of his death David said: "O my son
Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for
thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" (2 Sam. 18:33. Comp. Ex.
32:32; Rom.9:3), quote from dictionary.com
[> [> 2 comments -- anom, 08:31:30 11/18/02
Mon
"And she never did thank him for saving her life..."
Well, no. Because she's not thankful. Even from the moment
she regains consciousness in Prophecy Girl, she seems
harder, emotionless. Being killed had a deep effect on her.
I think it scared her at a very deep level. How could she
face slaying again if she let herself feel that fear? And
Xander put her in the situation that caused her to feel that
way. OK, ultimately the Master was responsible for that, but
if she'd stayed dead, she wouldn't have had to feel it.
"The name Absalom has both literary and biblical
references....The source of [Faulkner's] title was the
biblical figure Absalom, a son of King David. He was known
as the father of peace. Absalom was killed in battle and
upon hearing of his death David said: 'O my son Absalom, my
son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O
Absalom, my son, my son!'"
That's not exactly the whole story. The name Absalom
means "father of peace," but the biblical Absalom hardly
lived up to it. He rebelled against his father more
literally than most sons, making war on him & even
capturing Jerusalem. So his death in battle was not in
behalf of his father but quite the opposite. Handsome &
spoiled, Absalom had always been the favorite of David, who
said the words quoted above after his son's death in
spite of his betrayal.
What this says about the vamp of the same name, who seems to
have dedicated himself to the effort to bring the Master
back rather than trying to take his place, I don't know.
[> [> [> When it comes right down to it's
probably just a cool-sounding name :) -- ponygirl,
10:42:41 11/18/02 Mon
[> Re: "The Annotated Buffy" Update
Announcement/Official "When She Was Bad" Thread -- Rook,
23:36:44 11/17/02 Sun
Small continuity note: It's hard to hear, but at the very
end of the episode, after the music starts, you can hear
Wilow say that Sunnydale doesn't have a miniature golf
course...however later on, they visit one with Ted, and in
S3, the Mayor brings it up again.
Foreshadowing: Joyce: "I'll just be happy if she makes it
through the school year": The irony here is, of course, that
she doesn't.
[> Absence (and heavy meta) in When She Was Bad (mild
spoilers for Conversations) -- Rahael, 06:13:25
11/18/02 Mon
These are initial thoughts.
More later.
Firstly the title. I'm sure it comes from the nursery
rhyme:
"There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead.
And when she was good, she was very very good
And when she was bad, she was horrid"
This ep has so many great lines, it is no surprise that it
was Joss who wrote it.
There's a great opening scene with Xander and Willow -
everything is quiet. We, the television viewers, have been
away for the summer, just like Buffy has. We learn that
there have been no real Vamp attacks while Buffy has been
away. The minute she appears of course, a vamp strikes
"It's like they knew I was coming back"
But of course they did. A new season has started.
When Buffy's face first appears in shot, she looks right at
the viewer and says
"miss me?"
And it's as much said to the viewer as to Xander and Willow.
Very meta. Appropriately enough, Xander and Willow are
playing the movie quote game, before Buffy turns up with a
few witty quips of her own.
Buffy's absence
The entire conversation leading up to her arrival circled
around her absence. The hero is absent from the picture,
until she arrives, signalling her arrival with some action
hero-y Vamp ass kicking.
But Buffy continues to be emotionally absent for most of the
episode.
Her coming back is not only from LA, but from death. The
miss me is even more poignant because it is a question, not
a statement, and because we might never have got Buffy
back.
Throughout the episode, we get reminders of Buffy 'not being
there'. Xander tells Buffy she should have been there when
they buried the Master. But Buffy went away, she absented
herself from the closure of burial.
She doesn't go off to see Giles, she says casually that
she'll see him at school. Quite obviously, Buffy is
harbouring resentful feelings toward him. The father who let
her down, who didn't protect her. This is signalled by the
fact that Giles is the outer covering for the Master in her
dream. A sign that to her, all men are monsters underneath,
even the good ones. A viewpoint hammered home by Angel, a
beautiful man with a monster underneath.
Perhaps Xander, too contains a monster. Buffy hasn't found
out yet - perhaps the sexy dance was her taunting him,
testing the boundaries.
In fact, she punishes all the men in this ep - her father,
by being distant, Xander, through sex, Angel through
coldness. But underneath even that is the worry that all
these men act this way to her because she is the real
monster. The one who deserves to be sent out to die. The
one who deserves to be killed, to be reproached, to be
ignored. Her acting this way is an expression of how she
feels she is treated, and also her internalisation of her
low opinion of herself.
Her comment to Giles, when he asks her how she is:
"Live and kicking" is a pointed reminder she could be
dead and motionless. I see more resentment in her other
comment to Giles: You're the Watcher. I just work here
. Meaning, I'm the person who risks my life. You just
watch.
I think this ep ties in excellently to Conversations, and
Buffy's superiority/inferiority complex. None of the others
can understand what she goes through. It's 'her' figth. The
prophecy is all about her. She's the person who has to go
and fight danger. She puts everyone in danger by assuming
it's all about her.
But at the same time, she feels like dirt. She acts out what
she feels she is.
Hank says that She was just, I don't know, distant. Not
brooding or sulking, just....there was no connection. the
more time we spent together, the more I felt like she was
nowhere to be seen. .
This is both an ironic metanarrative point - Buffy is
invisible to Hank during the Summer, because she only lives
during the TV season, but also that she's missing. She's
lost inside herself, and she's disconnected herself from
everyone, both physically and emotionally. Here's a another
metaphor of invisibility as alienation.
As Ponygirl points out, Buffy is lost between the borders
and boundaries she patrols for society.
Even in her dream, Xander is trying to get a response from a
distant Buffy whose thoughts are elsewhere:
Xander: Buffy! Buffy!
Buffy: Fine! I'm Fine.
When Willow asks what she's thinking about she says
'nothing'.
She doesn't bother telling them, because they won't
understand. Which is kind of ironic because this is actually
a dream she is having and this particular Willow and Xander
are parts of her.
When Angel visits her, he tells her that she missed him. But
she hesitates too long with her much emotionally softer
"missed me?". She had been harsh with him until he admitted
it. But he had gone by then - he missed her comment.
And Buffy's echoing of her earlier question, missed
me shows that her deepest worry was that she is of no
consequence at all. She is beneath them, dead, buried. Part
of her was killed, and hasn't woken up to new life yet.
Buffy's death wish
I think in this Ep, Buffy, having escaped death, longs for
oblivion. Throughout the First Season, the Master's
presence, lay seething underground, the hidden shadow behind
all the eps.
In this ep, the Master again lies undergound, and his
influence is just as baleful. He 'rises' in Buffy's dream,
which is an ironic counterpoint to the fact that Colin is
trying to ressurrect him. In fact, just as in Season 1, it
is Buffy who allows him to escape. She is the one who is so
affected by him, that she allows his influence to be felt
long after his death.
In fact, Colin's attempt at ressurrecting the Master is
simply a metaphoric statement of Buffy's continuing fight
with him.
I think Buffy's reaction to Giles' interpretation of the
Latin text of the prophecy is really interesting. She says
that the Master must feel close to her, because he tried to
kill her. But what it really reveals is that she is
projecting. She feels close to the Master, who lies dead and
buried. She feels that she too is dead. Dead inside,
disconnected. Unmissed.
In fact, Xander even suggest this:
Hey, maybe when the Master killed her some mystical bad
guy transference thing happened"
In fact this does seem to be what happened, but only
emotionally, only physically.
So her comment to Xander, that she hadn't thanked him yet
for bringing her back to life had suppressed anger in it, an
anger expressed in the aggressiveness and meanness of her
sexuality in that dance with him. Thank Xander? She wants to
punish him!
She says to Angel that she's moved on to the living. But she
hasn't really. She's lying in that grave, that space between
life and death.
Buffy makes the point in the Bronze by creating a hugely
tense, dramatic sitaution, where she gets to control
everything, and leaves Xander, Willow and Angel, rooted to
the spot, hurt, controlled by her - and then she leaves.
Expressing her feeling both of absence, but also expressing
all the tense, unresolved feelings she has.
Vacancy
It's almost as if the Master's body acts as a commentary on
Buffy's emotions. She says to Giles:
" I went by his grave last night, and they have a
vacancy"
She doesn't resolve her emotional absenteeism until she
smashes the very physical body of the Master. A question in
terms of the Show's mythology has always been why the Master
left a body, unlike every other Vamp. Well, as always on
Buffy, the disjuncture is really important. It signals that
the Master isn't dead yet. And Skeletons are associated with
death. So the fact that his grinning skeleton is left behind
is a very big sign that Buffy has huge issues with
mortality.
In fact, I think Buffy's afraid that she's so lost between
the space of death and life (the distance of which is
measured by a grave, the grave of the Master) that her fear
is that her friends cannot see her, cannot understand her.
That there's no more space left for her in life.
Which is why in the last scene, Buffy gets some reassurance
that Willow and Xander have saved a seat for her. And that
in the first scene, the real point is not that Willow and
Xander can't wait for Buffy to get back, but that she's not
there, and she's worried whether she still fits into
Sunnydale, the land of the alive.
[> [> Re: Absence (and heavy meta) in When She Was
Bad (mild spoilers for Conversations) -- CW, 07:32:27
11/18/02 Mon
I think in this Ep, Buffy, having escaped death, longs
for oblivion.
My point of view is the opposite. I don't think at this
point Buffy viewed death as anything, but a horror. I
believe her 'nasty act' was a way to isolate all of her
friend's from horrid helpless deaths she suffered in
Prophecy Girl. What Buffy discovered in When She Was Bad,
was that her being isolated protected no one. It just made
it that much harder for her to protect people when they
needed her. And it in no way eased the burden of facing
death every night.
It was only after Fool for Love and especially after her
noble death in The Gift, that the oblivion of death actually
began to look attractive to Buffy.
[> [> [> Fool For Love -- Rahael,
08:02:45 11/18/02 Mon
But didn't Fool for Love suggest that there was a secret
wish in every Slayer for the thing they dealt out?
Also, maybe I'm projecting here but it is totally possible
to view death as a horror, and yet to long for it. Buffy
takes risks all the time. She walks the fine line.
Sometimes, when you come too close it starts to haunt you.
I mean, this is a girl whose natural home is the graveyard.
Who kills every night. Who has experienced death twice.
Who sleeps with the undead. Repeatedly. And because she
finds death a horror, she repulses herself. But she is
totally enmeshed in it.
But I think we just view her nasty act quite differently. I
don't think she's merely protecting her friends.
[> [> [> Rob -- Rahael, 08:30:55 11/18/02
Mon
Feel free not to include stuff where I just you know do the
over reachy thing. I just do my own interpretation of the
ep, and usually I find that the board sees differently.
I feel bad that I'm one of your most regular annotators
(thus forcing you to add in nearly everything I contribute!)
and yet quite possibly provide some of the fan wankery
annotations.
I'm just amazed that i go unchallenged on the annotation
thread so often!
Ps - when I say that Fool for Love shows that the Slayer has
a complex relationship with death (hey, she lives in both
lands!) I don't mean that Spike along to fulfil the deepest
wishes of their girlish hearts, and then use their blood as
a grisly aphrosidisiac with his loony Vamp girlfriend.
After all, it's Spike who points out that it could be any
Vamp that provides the fatal blow. It's luck not skill. Any
newly risen Vamp could have that 'one good day'. It's what
adds that poignancy to the Slayer dying young thing. Plus it
makes them less of a victim.
[> [> [> [> Re: Rob -- Rob, 09:16:03
11/18/02 Mon
Really, please don't feel bad. I love your annotations. I
honestly do.
I guess it's because I love finding symbolism in things,
too, and even when things seem over-reachy, I enjoy it. I
actually try to find stuff like that, too. For example, in
the OOS, OOM notes, when you said how you thought that the
losing of Marcie's adolescent body might be tied in to
spring and Cordy's blossoming, etc might be stretching a
little, I just thought, "Neat!" I don't know if the writers
ever thought of it in that way, but that symbolism did work
and reminds me of Bruno Bettelheim's "The Uses of
Enchantment." I don't know if you're aware of that book, but
it was a Freudian psychological study of fairy tales. Today,
I believe, a lot of it has been contested by more modern
psychiatrists, but one of the recurring themes in it was the
change from adolescence (sp?) to adulthood, and how girls in
fairy tales who do grow up need a brief period of rest/death
in between. Snow White, for example, and Sleeping Beauty
(whose pricking her finger on the spindle, Bettelheim says,
was a symbol for her first menstruation). So I kind of like
the idea of seeing Marcie as a fairy-tale-type figure who
couldn't deal with her changing body. Hey, if you think some
of your ideas are over-reachy, you should read some of the
essays in "Fighting the Forces: What's at Stake in Buffy the
Vampire Slayer." Some of the ideas in that book are beyond
kinda far-fetched, although I enjoyed a great deal of them.
In another Buffy essay book (I forget the name there were
also some cool symbols, such as Glory as Capitalist
Consumer/Corporation vs. Buffy and the Scoobies, the
Socialists/Small Business (Magic Box). That is a bit of a
stretch, too, also considering that Anya is anything but a
socialist (at least now lol).
Ramble much?
I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate your
contributions, and if there's ever anything I flat-out don't
agree with, if it makes you feel better, I promise I won't
post it. ;o) But so far, I've found a place in my notes for
just about everything you've contributed, and it's not just
because I want to fill out the notes. I know a thing or two
about having opinions that none of the rest of the board
have. I posted rave reviews for both "Wrecked" and
"Doublemeat Palace" and was shocked to find some scathing
disagreement the next day.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Seconding Rob --
ponygirl, 10:57:42 11/18/02 Mon
Rahael, I thought your annotations were great! I especially
liked the part about vacancy. It seemed to tie into Joss'
commentary on The Body (again thanks for typing that up)
about the physicality of death, and negative space - what
surrounds it defines the shape of the missing object.
The contrast between the opening scene where Willow and
Xander discuss Buffy's absence but are very much involved in
their own dynamic, one that is interrupted first by the
vampire and then by Buffy, and the end scene where Xander
and Willow have made a point of saving a space for Buffy and
welcome her into it very neatly sums up Buffy's journey back
to her friends in WSWB... and it's not something I had
noticed before. Thanks!
Insane Theory. Dawn vs...? (CWDP Spoilers) -- Harry
Parachute, 16:32:11 11/16/02 Sat
Don't know if this has been brought up yet...been fairly
busy these last few days and have been cleaning the house to
throw a party. But I might as well just post this. Worst-
case scenario, one of you regulars point me in the right
direction.
We've got Dawn in the house...we've got the Creepy
Thing...then we've got what appeared to be Joyce. What I've
noticed from my very limited skimming of the board is that
there are essentially two camps. One group believes that
Creepy Thing and Joyce are actually both the BBW and put on
a big show to convince Dawn that, since she had to go
through a tumultuous ordeal to get Joyce’s statement, it
must be a sincere one…and so sets in motion the BBW’s
“divide and conquer” stratagem. The other group is of the
opinion that, unsettling as it is, Joyce really was Joyce,
and Buffy really is a danger and could “go all black-eyed
veiny” or what-have-you.
But what if Joyce is the BBW and the Creepy Thing…despite it
being outright creepy and employing outright icky
tactics…was taking an active role in fighting it? Maybe it’s
not a White-Hat, maybe not even a Grey-Hat, but something
that fears the BBW and doesn’t want it to gain any headway
whatsoever?
We’ve got hints from “Cassie” this episode that this
shapeshifter isn’t playing by the cosmic rules.
“Fact is, the whole good-versus-evil, balancing the scales
thing—I'm over it. I'm done with the mortal coil. But
believe me, I'm going for a big finish.”
Halfrek in Lessons made mention that “something older than
the Old Ones” is causing lots of unrest, even in the bad-guy
camp…(and the only other times we’ve heard of this happening
is with 314 and the First Evil. With the lack of cybernetic
gizmos and the general tactics of this beastie, you can
guess which one I’m leaning towards)
So, back to Dawn, do we have a case of a thing that goes
bump in the night scaring the bejesus out of a little girl
in order to “save the day”?
It doesn’t really fit the shapeshifter’s MO. It can take
physical action against appliances and people.
The scrawling of “Mother’s milk is red today” could be
construed as a cryptic, metaphorical warning to Dawn not to
take anything, such as advice, from the Joyce
apparition.
It makes attempts to hold back Joyce AND get Dawn out of the
house.
The blows it delivers to Dawn are only illusory and
disappear when it is exorcised.
…
Is anyone buying this, or have I gone too far?
Oh, and by the way, I know I’ve seen someone post it before,
but what was the old movie on TV that Dawn was watching? The
general storyline of it I mean? Could it have any thematic
connections to this theory?
[> Re: Insane Theory. Dawn vs...? (CWDP Spoilers)
-- meritaten, 16:39:43 11/16/02 Sat
Hadn't thought of that, but...damn. I had forgotten the
mother's milk quote.
Interesting.
[> [> Re: Insane Theory. Dawn vs...? (CWDP
Spoilers) -- bluestar, 18:38:27 11/16/02 Sat
That actually makes sence 'Joyce' seemed like the BBW mo but
that deamon whatever wasn't and it wasen't trying to hurt
her it wanted her gone out of the house away from the BBW.
willow figured it out by herself.
buffy may have taken more help than harm from holden. if it
haden't been for spike.
and Spike?!? no real clue. do you think the electrics was
the BBW or the deamon?
is somthing trying to help them resist the BBW?
[> Buffy isn't necessarily... (speccy spoilery) --
ZachsMind, 17:00:07 11/16/02 Sat
Buffy isn't necessarily going to go all black & veiny.
Remember what deadJoyce said, "when things get bad, Buffy
will not choose you. She will be against you." This does
not mean either Buffy or Dawn will necessarily turn evil. It
means sides will be taken and there will be two camps. I
don't think either side will necessarily be evil. It's not
gonna be about good & evil and the balance. It's gonna
be about power. Joyce is warning Dawn that when things get
bad, Buffy & Dawn will be divided. They will disagree on
how to take out the BBW. This is what the BBW wants, and
Joyce was trying to caution Dawn about that. That she loves
them both but Dawn needs to be prepared that when things get
dicey, Buffy's not going to choose her.
Now. Choose her for what? That's what Joyce didn't detail.
We honestly don't know if the writers even know what
yet.
[> [> Point Taken... -- Harry Parachute,
00:46:24 11/17/02 Sun
I was just using the "black-eyed veiny" thing as a
exaggeration/lil' nod to the script, hence the what-have-you
that follows.
Ultimately I agree.
What I see happening might be similar to the Scooby
Gang/Knights of Byzantium conflict over Dawn that occured
back in S5. They're be the Kantian absolutism where the
individual matters and one acts like natural law in
following that guideline to the end despite any problems
along the way versus the more utilitarian, "ends-justify-the-
means", result-oriented path of action. Both out to do
right. Both employing very different methods.
However, I don't believe a thing the dead in Sunnydale say.
They're pawns, and as far as I'm concerned, Dead Joyce is
simply another manifestation of the BBW.
Cassie delivers a crippling message and disappears in a
disgusting first-hand imitation of an uroboruz. Joyce
delivers a crippling message and disappears with a simple
and serene fade away.
The BBW seems to come in all shapes and sizes.
[> [> [> ME has this part right; Just because
they're dead doesn't mean they're bright (or nice!) --
BriarRose, 15:11:25 11/17/02 Sun
[> [> Re: Buffy isn't necessarily... (speccy
spoilery) -- wiscoboy, 06:08:39 11/17/02 Sun
Remember also, Dawn's abilities as the human "KEY" still
have not been explored by the ME writers. Maybe we'll see a
resolution to the whole 'instant sister' storyline, thus
pointing us again to the 'Back to the Beginning'
concept.
Crossover of BBW -- meritaten, 16:32:40 11/16/02
Sat
Is anyone thinking, or perhaps hoping would be more
accurate, that we see Buffy and Angel both fighting against
the same BBW? Wouldn't it be great if both teams win
separate victories that work together to defeat BBW? Both
are leading up to a huge battle. Since the both series are
linked, even if they are now on different stations, I'd like
to see this horrific, world-altering battle occur over both
series.
I love this season on both shows. And, would you believe
that I will miss the second half of both seasons! I'm going
to be working abroad, with no access to television. As much
as I am looking forward to this trip, I'm bummed about
missing my shows. Thank God for fellow fans with
VCRs!!!!!!!
[> My Guess (Spoilers for all aired episodes) --
Finn Mac Cool, 21:07:23 11/16/02 Sat
With all this talk of an ominous apocalypse on both shows,
one that seems to have everyone running around with their
tails between their legs, I think there may be a connection.
But, since there's the whole "no crossover rule" which bites
just as much as the "happiness clause", I'm think that both
shows will simply tell us that the End Times are here, a
period in time when the forces of the universe align to
cause the conditions necessary to provoke demonic forces to
destroy the world.
[> [> Re: My Guess (Spoilers for all aired
episodes) -- Juliet, 21:28:38 11/16/02 Sat
I'll confess: I'm a crossover whore. I'm firmly of the
belief that the shows should have a crossover at least once
a season, and since they technically skipped last year they
should have two this time around.
I kinda want to see Xander's reaction to Nouveau
Cordelia.
[> [> [> Re: My Guess (Spoilers for all aired
episodes) -- meritaten, 15:49:37 11/17/02 Sun
How about Buffy's reaction to Angel / Cordelia?????
In fact, that just might be the source of the
apocalypse!
[> [> [> [> Re: My Guess (Spoilers for all
aired episodes) -- Q, 16:40:55 11/17/02 Sun
Or Angels reaction to Buffy/Spike?
Or Buffy's reaction to Darla/ Angel?
OR Xanders reaction to Angel/cordelia--ooh baby (he still
won't be as pissy about it as I am though!)
[> Re: Crossover of BBW -- Q, 16:46:50 11/17/02
Sun
I hope so, because so far it has been painfully unrealistic
to me. Willow knows about the coming darkness from England,
as does Giles. As does every demon and creature with their
fingers on the pulse of darkness. It is big. REAL big.
Really, really, BIG.
And yet, no sign of it shows up 2 hours down the freeway in
L.A.
It takes the no crossover rule to a place that SERIOUSLY
detriments the story, in my opinion. They wouldn't even need
to have regular characters showing up on each others show.
They would just need to correlate the stories, which
wouldn't be that hard.
If this is truly the end of BtVS, it would make more sense
too, because it could set up Angels direction in the post
BtVS world, and set up future guest shots of Buffy stars on
Angel.
EVERYTHING suggests a NEED to intertwine the stories of the
two shows this season, and so far I am very
dissapointed!
Three? -- meritaten, 16:50:39 11/16/02 Sat
As I've been reading posts here, I've seen references to the
number three, but I'm not sure where this is coming from or
what it means. Apparently Giles said something in Season 5,
but I don't know the context.
Could someone enlighten me?
Thanks so much!
[> Not a Buffy reference, AFAIK -- Philistine,
20:51:08 11/16/02 Sat
I think it's actually a reference to Monty Python and the
Quest for the Holy Grail. A running gag in that movie is
that King Arthur can't actually count to three - he keeps
jumping from two straight to five, immediately being
corrected ("Three, sir!") by whoever is around.
[> [> Quite Right...(and sorry for the
confusion) -- Nightingale, 04:44:02 11/17/02 Sun
Yes, this was a reference to Monty Python's Holy Grail. I
should have noted it in a subject line (or at least in a
post). Very Sorry for the confusion. I was actually fairly
surprised someone managed to bring it back to something
Giles had said, since it was completely unrelated (although,
this really shouldn't have surprised me at all!).
-NG
[> [> [> No one should have to explicit they're
mentionning Holy Grail. It should be a natural
assumption. -- Ete Holy Grail fanatic, 13:10:54
11/17/02 Sun
(The Microscopic) Classic Movie of the Week - November
16th 2002 -- OnM, 21:00:13 11/16/02 Sat
*******
Nothing fancy here like in my previously traditional weekly
movie visits, but while I was composing the early parts
of
this week’s thoughts on Conversations w/ Dead People,
this movie popped up as one with more
than a few similarities to possible future events on BtVS.
This is indeed a ‘classic’, sez I, and I urge you to
check it out. It is available on DVD, as far as I know.
Presented for your inspection:
Angel Heart - (1987) - Directed by Alan
Parker
Writing credits: William Hjortsberg (novel) & Alan
Parker
IMDb User Rating: 7.0/10 (4,912 votes)
Cast overview:
Mickey Rourke .... Harry Angel
Robert De Niro .... Louis Cyphre
Lisa Bonet .... Epiphany Proudfoot
Charlotte Rampling .... Margaret Krusemark / Madame Zorah
Stocker Fontelieu .... Ethan Krusemark / Edward Kelly
Brownie McGhee .... Toots Sweet
Michael Higgins .... Dr. Albert Fowler
Elizabeth Whitcraft .... Connie
Eliott Keener .... Sterne
Charles Gordone .... Spider Simpson
Dann Florek .... Herman Winesap
Kathleen Wilhoite .... Nurse
George Buck .... Izzy
Judith Drake .... Izzy's Wife
Gerald Orange .... Pastor John
Runtime: 113 min
For a very positive review and some interesting thoughts,
check out:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1987/03/220809.h
tml
*******
Sorry for the lack of time in which to post some of my own
thoughts on this film, but for anyone who
has seen it and would like to post some comments, by
all means, go for it! My loss doesn’t need to
prevent your gain! :-)
******
Ye Aulde Parting Shot:
Got a chance to see Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited
Away earlier this week, which turned out
to be a very good thing, since when I checked the ads for my
local multiplex today, it has been rudely
kicked out of play by the Harry Potter and 8
Mile behemoths. Please see this film in
a real theater if you possibly can-- it’s one of the
year’s best films, animated or otherwise-- a
masterwork by any definition. For a review by James
Berardinelli (one of my fave net reviewers), check
out:
http://movie-
reviews.colossus.net/movies/s/spirited_away.html
E. Plur. Cine. Un,
(Yeah, yeah, actually two flicks, so sue me
already!),
-- OnM
*******
[> AH is one of my all time favorites, I'm happy to
say. -- Harry Parachute, 00:24:39 11/17/02 Sun
I don't have much to say about this film when it comes to
heady intellectual stuff at the moment...for two
reasons.
First off, I saw this film when I was very, very young. My
mother had two films which she completely refused to let me
see. This was one. Blue Velvet was the other. Needless to
say, Angel Heart did some serious damage to me when I was in
my formative years. The last shot of the film haunts me to
this day.
Secondly, I'm hammered. Friend of mine had her birthday
party tonight. *urp*
...
Anywho,
I remember an IFC interview with Christopher Nolan, director
of Memento, who mentioned this film as one of his personal
favorites. He said something along the lines of it was a
film that gave you enough information for you to actually
figure out what was happening, so the conclusion wasn't
completely jarring, without giving away too much...it was a
perfect balance that didn't leave you feeling either
cheated/deus ex machina'd or talked down to.
Couldn't agree more. All points led to the conclusion.
Still waiting to see Spirited Away. Miyazaki makes hot fish
out of cornbread any day of the season. Let's Saturday for
some yak!
*Dances with Mugsy*
[> Oh, I watched Angel Heart very recently --
Etrangere, 13:07:34 11/17/02 Sun
I was striken by all the similarities with Angel the Serie,
I figured it was one of their big inspiration.
Has someone on the board already commented on that subject
?
Is (name censored) smarter than everyone thinks?
(Spoilers up to 7.7) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:46:53
11/16/02 Sat
Is Andrew smarter than everyone thinks? (I censored his name
before because we aren't supposed to have spoilers for
recent episodes in the subject lines).
Back in Season Six, something it was very common to see was
a description of the Nerd Trio as Jonathan (the Good One),
Warren (the Evil One), and Andrew (the Dumb One). But I'm
doubting how valid this last classification is. There have
been several times when Andrew has displayed some behaviour
I wouldn't expect from a true idiot:
In "Flooded", Andrew challenges Warren and Jonathan's
analogy of their life of crime to an interstellar voyage. He
apparently knew exactly how faster-than-light travel was
supposed to work and could even pick out technical details
that could go wrong.
In "Entropy", he goes to the computers the Trio had set up
to see who had hacked into their system. This seems to
indicate he had a fairly good knowledge of computers at the
very least.
In "Two to Go/Grave", Andrew actually seemed fairly smart.
He thought of every possible option for escaping Darth
Willow ("Anya! Teleport us!" "I can summon a demon that
could kill her." Suggesting Jonathan use some of the Magic
Box's products against Willow, and trying to make his get
away by holding Xander at sword point. While these tactics
were ruthless and didn't pan out, they weren't truly
dumb.
In "Conversations With Dead People", we find out that Andrew
learned a foreign language (Klingon) in two and a half
weeks. We also discover he's been fooling Jonathan about his
hidden agenda with Pseudo-Warren for a while now. The second
feat indicates some amount of shrewdity, and the first is
truly remarkable (although I can't really comment whether
Klingon is easy to learn or not).
On several occasions we've seen Andrew summon demons. I
imagine that a certain level of intelligence is needed in
order to accomplish this.
Lastly, no one who is truly stupid could remember quite as
much movie, TV, and comic book trivia as Andrew has
amassed.
Now, Andrew does have vast delusions about the line between
fantasy and reality, and I doubt he'll be more than a pawn
for the Great Evil. Still, I give credit where credit is
due.
[> There's a difference between intelligence and
wisdom... -- ZachsMind, 22:36:54 11/16/02 Sat
Years ago I worked for a woman who was a MENSA member. She
had an incredibly high I.Q., but terrible social skills.
When it came to interacting with people she was retarded.
She could answer pretty much any question that was thrown at
her, but her common sense was that of a housefly.
I think that's what we're seeing here with Andrew. He was
never very good at interacting with people so he turned to
books. He never seemed capable of controlling his own life
or having power over others, so he sought out media that
helped him escape to a world of fantasy, and amassed
knowledge from books with powerful magic spells that he
could use to attain power and control over his environment.
Completely oblivious to the fact that the fault was not in
his stars but in himself, his efforts at controlling his
environment only led to more problems. That's probably about
when he ran into Warren & Jonathan for the first time.
Sure. Give kudos to Andrew for booksmarts. A for effort and
all that, but he's just socially inept, which is Andrew's
Achilles' heel... or shin splint as the case may be.
[> [> Ditto this. -- HonorH, 22:54:02
11/16/02 Sat
Yes, Andrew's smart. He's probably got a very high IQ. When
it comes to people, though, he's a dunce. He's got the
emotional maturity of a two-year-old, and he's stunted
morally.
The true division among the Geeks was this: Warren was a
sociopath, lacking feeling for any human except himself.
Andrew was deeply immature and tended to cling to anything
that made him feel special--like demon summoning, or Warren.
Jonathan, while socially inept, was able to grow emotionally
and had empathy for his fellow human beings.
[> [> [> Agree with all things said above --
Finn Mac Cool, 06:57:53 11/17/02 Sun
If anything, "Conversations With Dead People" reinforced
Andrew's dismal abilities to interact with the real world. I
never denied any of this. However, I just seem to see a lot
of descriptions of Andrew that describe him simply as an
idiot without clarifying, so I thought I'd bring this
up.
P.S. I've suspected before that Andrew may be either
partially autistic or partially schizophrenic, but what I
know about those two conditions isn't that vast. Can anyone
tell me if this suspicion is valid or not?
[> [> [> [> Different forms of
intelligence... -- KdS, 07:20:58 11/17/02 Sun
There's quite a bit of speculation at the moment about
different forms of intelligence. One scheme that seems to be
colonising pop psychology (and works well with Andrew)
differentiates between intellectual intelligence (IQ) and a
form of "emotional intelligence (EQ)" which is described as
the ability to empathise with other people, predict their
behaviour, communicate feelings etc. By this system Andrew
would be the textbook case of someone with high IQ but zero
EQ.
As far as specific mental diagnoses go, I'm no expert, but I
would say that Andrew is definitely not schizophrenic. He
fairly clearly seems to be in the same consensus physical
reality as everyone else - he's not hallucinating or
delusional in the sense of having clearly false beliefs
about the external world. Right now he's seeing things and
hearing voices, but this is the Buffyverse, remember :-) His
emotional immaturity, social ineptness and preoccupation
with trivia do seem to suggest a certain level of autistic
tendencies, although I would say the same thing about Fred
(less extreme than Andrew, but still noticeable).
[> [> [> [> [> Labelling Andrew --
LadyStarlight, 07:47:42 11/17/02 Sun
If I had to label Andrew as anything other than 'inept', I'd
probably go with Asperger's Syndrome; a high-functioning
form of Autism.
From the Centre for the Study of Autism:
Language:
lucid speech before age 4 years; grammar and vocabulary are
usually very good
speech is sometimes stilted and repetitive
voice tends to be flat and emotionless
conversations revolve around self
Cognition:
obsessed with complex topics, such as patterns, weather,
music, history, etc.
often described as eccentric
I.Q.'s fall along the full spectrum, but many are in the
above normal range in verbal ability and in the below
average range in performance abilities.
many have dyslexia, writing problems, and difficulty with
mathematics
lack common sense
concrete thinking (versus abstract)
Behavior:
movements tend to be clumsy and awkward
odd forms of self-stimulatory behavior
sensory problems appear not to be as dramatic as those with
other forms of autism
socially aware but displays inappropriate reciprocal
interaction
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Labelling
Andrew -- Blood Luvin Girl, 07:54:26 11/17/02 Sun
I have an older brother with Asperger's Syndrome. He's very
intillegent, but sucks with any social interactions. Most
people can't even tell that he has it. It takes getting to
know him to realise that he's different.
With knowing my brother so well, I could easily see Andrew
suffering from Asperger's Syndrome.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Labelling
Andrew -- Tyreseus, 14:18:34 11/17/02 Sun
I have a younger brother with Asperger's Syndrome as well.
Definately similar to Andrew at times.
I wonder if this was a particular choice on the part of ME
(maybe one of them has personal experience with Asperger's).
It's not a very commonly known condition. Of course, we
could just be reading into a character who was created by ME
from their observations of different types of people and
they never made a conscious choice to have him afflicted
with Asperger's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hope I don't have to
say this but... -- KdS, 09:52:48 11/17/02 Sun
Note that Andrew's amorality *cannot* be explained by his
Aspieness, if he actually does have it. Various sources on
the condition say that people with Asperger's Syndrome are
rarely guilty of violent crime and often have very rigid
codes of personal morality.
Sorry if it's unneccessary, but I have friends and family
with various intermittent mental conditions and I get very
upset when the uneducated assume everyone with a diagnosed
mental condition is a psycho-killer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It has been
heavily implied on the show. . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
10:14:56 11/17/02 Sun
That Andrew would not be in the same position he is now,
ethically speaking, if it weren't for the influence of
Warren. At the beginning of Season Six, Andrew came down
very clearly against killing Buffy in order to get the
M'Fashnik demon off their backs. It was only later, after
several months of hanging around with a sociopath, being
slowly dragged in to a life of crime, and unwittingly
becoming an acomplice to murder, that Andrew started to do
become more violent.
If Andrew does have Asperger's Syndrome, or some other form
of autism, I agree it can't be directly linked to his evil
behaviour. However, I think it did lead to being generally
cut off from most of society, and this mixture of aloneness
and lack of social interaction made him more easily
influenced by Warren.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hope I
don't have to say this but... -- LadyStarlight,
10:17:18 11/17/02 Sun
That thought hadn't even occured to me. Apologies if I
suggested that.
The only reason I thought of Asperger's Syndrom was that
from what I'd read on the subject (mostly layperson stuff),
Andrew seemed to have some of the symptoms.
I don't think of people who are afflicted with mental
illnesses as 'psycho-killers'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't
worry, Milady -- KdS, 12:42:53 11/17/02 Sun
More a preemptive rebuttal than an accusation against anyone
who'd already posted.
[> [> [> [> [> Well, there was that one
time. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:23:07 11/17/02 Sun
In "Life Serial" when the Trio were talking about the X-
Files, and he said "Scully wants me." So he's at least a
little delusional, I'd say.
[> [> [> [> [> Agree with Kd's take;
Autistic/"Idiot Sevant" type.... -- Briar Rose,
14:34:22 11/17/02 Sun
Actually I have read a lot of psyche lit that tends to state
there has always been a coalation between highly intelligent
people and fixations on occult and fantasy. The reasons have
been given as everything from boredom with the status quo to
truly empowered energy that they learn how to manipulate.
(All depends on the researcher and the agenda they are
pushing, doesn't it really?*L)
And it is true that there are different kinds of
intelligence. You can be book smart and socially inept, you
can have good old horse sense and not a lick of scholarly
indentified intelligence and you can be gifted
empathetically but useless in anything that has to do with
common sense or formal education.
I sort of see Andrew as "The Perfect Eating Machine" he has
the wits and intelligence to latch onto whomever he thinks
will feed him emotionally, physically and financially. That
was Warren. And it takes a special kind of natoive
intelligence to do that lifestyle. Besides, the TRULY
brilliant are capable of finding ways to make others do the
actual work for them and they get the creamy nougat at the
end. Andrew has always used his seeming lack of mental gifts
to get out of the actual work by appearing incompetent while
always being a least one step ahead of the plans needs and
expected outcomes. MOO.
Another thought on Dawn and Joyce: (7.7 spoilers) --
HonorH, 22:49:31 11/16/02 Sat
Thought on Dawn: I've been going at my analyses from the pov
that "Joyce" was the BBW. Well, what if she's not? What if
she's learned something she needed to tell Dawn, and
something really was trying to keep her from delivering the
message? We've already had a Summers sisters estrangement,
and I don't think they'll repeat.
What I think is this: Willow will come home, find Dawn
sobbing on the floor, and they'll talk. Dawn will tell her
there was a demon, but she won't tell about Joyce. As
they're cleaning up, though, Willow will tell Dawn about her
experience with "Cassie". Dawn will then admit that "Joyce"
talked to her. Upon hearing what Joyce said, Willow will
tell Dawn it couldn't have been her--it must've been the BBW
again, messing with Dawn. They'll cry, they'll hug, and
Dawn, though upset that she didn't really see her mother,
will be relieved to hear that the prophecy was a fake. No
problems, and she and Buffy hug when Buffy gets home from
investigating Spike's recent shenanigans.
Only Joyce was real, and when things come down, Dawn and
Buffy *are* caught on opposite sides. Could be very
interesting, no?
[> I'll agree Halfway In. -- Harry Parachute (Yes,
still drunk), 01:15:44 11/17/02 Sun
I'll side with you on the Willow/Dawn talk. Willow will do
her best to convince Dawn that Joyce was just a
manifestation of the BBW, and Dawn will do her best to
believe her. It's the rational thing to believe, after
all.
But...and I'm saying this at the risk of angering the Dawn
Defenders...Dawn is ultimately not the most rational of the
bunch.
She's young. She's innocent. She's romantic.
She'll so desperately want to believe that it was her mother
that her distrust of Buffy will grow. I haven't seen S6 for
the most part, so I can't comment on it or how much the
sistery estrangement has been played out.
I will say that there have been some hints this season that
Dawn and Buffy will have an ugly confrontation and that Dawn
has shown some real creepiness so far.
There's her cold anger with Buffy in "Beneath You" about the
omission that Spike was back, along with the extremely eerie
"You're gonna wake up on fire" stare-down.
There's the morbidness in "Same Time, Same Place" with the
research of Gnarl.
There's the "You were the one I trusted" comment in
"Him"
There's the gruesome and wrathful image of her blood-filled
mouth casting out the Poltergeist in CWDP.
...However, this is all coming from the position that Joyce
really was the BBW, which I defended in my "Insane Theory"
post below. So, if Joyce really was the BBW, then this
prophecy holds no weight at all. If and when it comes about,
it's my opinion that it will be a self-fulfilling one that
works on Dawn's innocent and ever-hopeful disposition.
In my post below I half-jokingly suggested that Buffy would
be the one to go all black-eyed veiny. The more I think (and
drink) about it, the more I'm of the opinion that Dawn's
gonna be the problem child.
Maybe we're in store for a Hell of a lot more than mere
estrangement this season. *shrug*
[> [> That is another possibility. -- HonorH,
11:04:10 11/17/02 Sun
I agree that Dawn could hear and try to believe Willow. It
could result in her trying extra-hard to be a good sister to
Buffy, even. But I could see "Joyce's" words ultimately
having a powerful impact on her, no matter how hard she
tries to believe they weren't true.
Doing some number thinking (* spoilers up to 7.6 and
speculation*) -- Alvin, 05:25:05 11/17/02 Sun
I thought it odd that Jonathon would blurt out his locker
combination in CWDP (36,19,27) so I looked at what episodes
they were. #19 is Lie to Me which ends with Buffy in a
graveyard to kill Ford, a former friend that has been turned
into a vampire by Spike. Now #27 is Phases and #36 is Faith,
Hope, and Trick. At the moment, I'm drawing a blank on how
those two apply. The only other werewolf reference I can
think of is from Lessons where the female zombie complains
that she was torn apart by a werewolf, and I'm at a loss as
to FH&T. Also going back to Lessons, it's interesting
that Morphy as Adam calls Spike #17 instead of Hostile 17.
Episode #17 is Reptile Boy. At the moment I haven't even
convinced myself that there's something to it, but if a
werewolf or another slayer show up, I think numbers
mentioned do refer to earlier episodes whose plots are being
revisted. Of course now that I think about it, we did see
possible new slayers at the beginning of Lessons and BY.
Maybe we'll finally get back to that plotline. Now all I
need is a werewolf....
random thought 7.7 spoilerish re: the duo -- jojo,
06:56:39 11/17/02 Sun
did i imagine it or did jonathan & andrew make reference
to 'from beneth you it devours', right at the start, in
spanish. sorry if this has been brought up before, been away
a while
[> The answer is Yes. -- Finn Mac Cool,
07:02:23 11/17/02 Sun
Though they incorrectly translated it as "It eats you
starting at your bottom."
My Two Dads (yet another Speculation season 7) --
neaux, 07:03:05 11/17/02 Sun
Ok... If you wonder where I'm going with the Television
title... you need to twist it a bit. just a "Lil Bit"
and you Get My Two Dawns.
Please forgive me if someone else has mentioned this on the
board, but since almost everyone is convinced the big bad is
a Mighty morphin power ranger
Why not transform into another Dawn?
Buffy then must choose between two Dawns. Joyce's prophecy
would be correct. But here it gets tricky.
The end can play out in two ways from this point.
A. Buffy must choose which Dawn to Save/Kill. Buffy does not
choose the Real Dawn to Save and Kills Real Dawn.. and then
the whole TV audience feels sad and crappy, but at least
avoids the typical TV cliche of picking the right one.
B. Buffy chooses to Kill the Bad Dawn.. therefore NOT
choosing the Real Dawn and still fullfilling Joyce's
prophecy and everyone lives happily ever after.
ok.. third scenario. The Fake Dawn has a Goatee.
anyway, lets pray this speculation doesnt happen.
[> Re: My Two Dads (yet another Speculation season
7) -- chuk_38, 15:06:50 11/17/02 Sun
ah, but part A might work out really well, the whole getting
it wrong and making the situation worse, just look at the
time travelling farscape episode with the nuns and the war.
that went all kablooey, but was one of the best farscape eps
imo :)
but still, we cant kill dawn, well maybe just a little
:)
[> but so far... -- anom, 21:46:04 11/17/02
Sun
...it looks like Meta-Morphy can only appear in the form of
people who've died, & Dawn hasn't. Hmm, maybe that's to
avoid confusion btwn. it & the real thing--since
there's always the chance Buffy (or whoever) will guess
right, or figure it out, like Willow did w/Cassie.
Arizonans, the first basketball disaster of the
season... -- Cactus Watcher, 08:33:22 11/17/02
Sun
Although this morning's Arizona Republic TV magazine shows
Buffy at its regular time this week, a quick check of the
Sun's schedule in the sports section shows, basketball will
be on instead. TVguide.com says we, in AZ, won't get the
next episode till 9:00 PM next Saturday. Sigh.
At least once last year, a later broadcast time was changed
so keep a watch on the listings.
[> I hope they don't pull stunts like this... --
Sophie, 08:46:57 11/17/02 Sun
when I'm out visitin' Arizona in January. Maybe I should
plan on bribing my roomie to set my VCR for those two new
eps... Was planning to take a blank VCR tape and record on
my parents VCR so that I can watch them in a timely fashion!
S
OT/PS: My parents say "Zonies" rather than "Arizonans".
[> [> Re: I hope they don't pull stunts like
this... -- CW, 09:36:30 11/17/02 Sun
There are often reruns in January, so maybe you'll get
lucky.
Zonies? Well, I guess there are worse names. Few people you
meet here are actually from here. So it's harder to
accidentally insult someone using the wrong word than in
most other places.
[> Now that is just plain rude. It's happened to me
too..... -- Deb, 10:15:25 11/17/02 Sun
[> Re: Only once?? -- Silky, 15:20:13 11/17/02
Sun
In Southeastern Wisconsin last spring (Jan - May) we saw
Buffy at its correct time maybe 3 times - almost every week
we had to sit and watch the end of the stupid Bucks game and
wait for Buffy to come on. Couldn't even set the VCR because
you could never be sure when the game would end. We
complained.
This year - only 2 episodes will be pre-empted all season.
Hmmm. Maybe complaining helped...
[> Basketball already? Does it never end...? --
Wisewoman, 15:54:49 11/17/02 Sun
I just barely got over a houseful of baseball addiction!
(Thank the PTB he doesn't watch hockey...I'd never
get control of the remote!)
grrrr. arrrrrgh. ;o)
End of All Things (more season 7 speculation) --
Gachnar, 08:49:18 11/17/02 Sun
Some thoughts on possible events this season:
1. Sometime soon the BBW will be able to manifest itself
physically.
2. The BBW will want to all reality.
3. In an attempt to prevent the BBW from acquiring an
artifact needed to bring about reality's end, Willow will
take command of the four elements and attack the BBW.
However, Buffy unknowingly protects the BBW and gives the
artifact to the BBW.
4. In an attempt to infiltrate the Spirit Guides, the BBW
will impersonate one of the Scoobies.
5. Olaf's Hammer will making another appearance as Buffy
goes up against the BBW.
6. The BBW was once one of the Powers That Be. It is tired
of keeping the balance and seeks to change it.
7. The BBW will initially want to use Spike to create a
vampire army and possibly steal his soul.
8. The BBW will sense the Power of the Key in Dawn and seek
to gain it for it's own use, dropping it's plans for Spike
in the process.
9. In the physical form of a friend, the BBW will befriend
Dawn and possibly convince her to move out of the Summers
home.
10. During an attack by a demon horde, Dawn will access the
power of the Key to protect everyone.
11. Dawn will not want the power of the Key, and allows it
to be passed on to her new friend - the BBW.
12. Once the BBW has the Key's power, it will reveal
itself.
13. D'Hoffryn will try to stop the BBW but be destroyed.
14. The BBW, with Key powers, will challenge the Powers That
Be and possibly turn some to it's cause.
15. In the final climactic battle, the BBW and the Powers
That Be will choose their champions for the fate of all
reality. Spike will be fighting for TPTB and Buffy will be
fighting for the BBW.
[> CwDP has prompted so much speculation I feel I must
chime in (spoilers to 7.7) -- Tyreseus, 14:01:00
11/17/02 Sun
I've been trying to avoid the over-speculation thing
because, as masq said, we're more out to sea after this
episode than we usually are. The clues are there, but they
could point in so many different directions.
So here are my two "insane trollop theories"
1. The BBW is actually an insurance company exec. After 7
years of raising premiums on life insurance, health
insurance, property insurance, commercial business
insurance, car insurance, and even attack by large spider-
demon insurance - they're simply still losing their asses on
pay-outs to Sunnydale residents who are making record
numbers of claims. So one executive, swamped by the
unbelievable case load of claims, just loses it and decides
to end the world. (Imagine how many claims must have been
made just at the beginning on season 6 when the biker demons
wrought havok on Sunnydale) Using the unbelievable amount of
personal information he has garnered from his investigations
into Sunnydale-Weirdness-Related cases, he becomes the
morphing BBW and forms a plan to destroy the world.
2. The BBW is Buffy's dad. Clues: Buffy talked about him
again in CwDP, he's been missing forever (not even counting
Weight of the World (flashback) and Normal Again (false
reality)) and notably since Joyce's death, Dawn has no real
memory of him and when Buffy is forced to "choose" between
her real father and her "created" sister she is torn...
Buffy has also lost the father figure of Giles and we could
have some real daddy-needing emotional fun. Besides, after 7
seasons, there are definately some unanswered questions
about this dead-beat dad who has played no role in his
kid's/kids' lives for so long. Did the monks implant Dawn
memories into him? Does he even know who Dawn is?
Okay, so I'm not really buying either of my theories either,
but hey, as long as we're all speculating.
[> [> Dawn's Dad -- Sergio, 14:53:44
11/17/02 Sun
In Bargaining I, Willow and Dawn tell the Buffybot not to
answer the phone because they are expecting a call from
Dawn's father. For some reason Dawn is afraid she'll be
forced to go to LA to live with dad.
[> [> [> Re: Dawn's Dad -- Tyreseus,
15:05:16 11/17/02 Sun
Yeah, Dawn remembers her father. But I still wonder if her
father knows who she is. We've never heard as much from his
mouth.
[> [> My Own Bizarro Theory -- Finn Mac Cool,
17:49:05 11/17/02 Sun
The Shapeshifter is the physical representation of fan
obsession.
Let's think about it:
In "Lessons", when it imitates the previous Big Bads, it
recycles dialouge they used before in a slightly tweaked
format. This strikes me as oddly similar to what happens in
a lot of fanfiction.
In this episode, it also espouses the line that "it's not
about right, it's not about wrong". From my experience
online, the fan community always seems to try to make Buffy
the Vampire Slayer grayer than the writers originally
intended.
In "Selfless", the Shapeshifter appears to Spike as white-
shirt-Buffy. All of its behaviour here is practically an S/B
shipper's wet dream.
In "Conversations With Dead People", it takes the form of
Cassie because fans had been saying that Cassie was too cool
for ME not to use again.
Lastly, with all the talk about meta-narraration this
season, it might be oddly fitting that the Big Bad is the
ULTIMATE form of meta-narrarating.
Perhaps this season will be about Buffy and the Scooby Gang
thwarting fan obsession and expectation personified in the
Shapeshifter and taking on their true roles.
[> [> [> By George, I think he's got it... -
- KdS, 03:36:40 11/18/02 Mon
We are the Big Bad!
BWAHAHAHAHA
My analysis of "Conversations with Dead People" is up
-- Masquerade, 10:19:22 11/17/02 Sun
Here.
Some observations, some guess work, some assumptions. Heck,
if I'm wrong, I'll just change it.
I'm off to par-tay now. Cake, ice cream, tributes to the
goddess Yeska. And the yummiest part, new salty AtS
goodness!
[> PS there are partial October archives up now...
-- Masq, 10:32:46 11/17/02 Sun
They just aren't being linked to yet for some reason.
Go here:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/archives/oct02.html
[> [> And partial November as well . . . --
d'Herblay, 14:55:42 11/17/02 Sun
Here.
[> Wow! Brilliant! Thank you! -- ZachsMind,
10:34:43 11/17/02 Sun
You took several paragraphs of my rambling and condensed
what I was trying to say into one concise single paragraph.
Kudos! Remind me to contact you about the possibility of
being my editor should I ever get around to that Great
American Novel I've always been meaning to get around to
writing. One of the many things that makes me a terrible
writer is that I seem incapable of brevity. Oh, and thanks
for letting me be a part of it. That was fun! =)
[> Happy Birthday to you...hope the whole conjuring
Yeska thing works out for ya! ;) -- LadyStarlight,
10:37:39 11/17/02 Sun
[> Wait, come back Masq! Something's wrong... --
Wisewoman, 15:36:37 11/17/02 Sun
That link only takes me to the analysis of "Him" and when I
go to your episode index the link to "Conversations with
Death People" takes me to "Him" as well...what am I doing
wrong?
Bemusedwoman
[> [> I think it's your "cache" -- Masq,
15:45:04 11/17/02 Sun
People tell me this all the time, and I think it has to do
with your computer or browser pulling up a previous version
of the page. All I know to do in that instance is reload the
page.
[> [> [> Thanks! That worked. -- ;o),
15:51:26 11/17/02 Sun
[> Re: My analysis of "Conversations with Dead People"
is up -- frisby, 20:57:55 11/17/02 Sun
Very good work as usual. But whatever are you going to do
with the Angel 4.7 episode? Talk of hyperbole! And what is
yet to come????
Buffy and Willow in 'Fear Itself' (spoiler for S4.4 and
very minor spoilers for S6 and 7.7) -- Sang, 12:04:15
11/17/02 Sun
While I was watching Fear Itself re-run at WB, I realized
that this early episod of S4 shows almost exact miniature
version of S6 confrontation (sans violance) and Buffy's
superior feeling to her friends.
Below is the scene from "Fear Itself".
Buffy: "Will, I'm telling you..."
Willow: "You're telling me? You're telling me?!?"
Buffy: "I can't do my job if I have to worry about each of
your safety."
Willow: "It's not your decision!"
Buffy: "Got to disagree with you there."
Willow: "Oh, of course you do."
Xander: "Let's all take a breath. Buffy, maybe..."
Willow: "Being the Slayer doesn't automatically make you
boss. You're as lost as the rest of us."
Oz: "What are we talking about?"
Willow: "It's a simple incantation, a guiding spell for
travelers when they become lost or disoriented."
Buffy: "And how does it work?"
Willow: "It conjures an emissary from the beyond that :
lights the way."
Buffy: "Conjuring. Will, let's be realistic here. Okay, your
basic spells are usually only fifty-fifty."
Willow upset: "Oh yeah? Well, - so is your face!"
Willow walks off while Buffy tries to figure out what that
meant:
"What?! (Walks after Willow) What does that mean?"
Willow turns around: "I'm not your sidekick!"
[> Re: Buffy and Willow in 'Fear Itself' (spoiler for
S4.4 and very minor spoilers for S6 and 7.7) -- Rook,
23:21:20 11/17/02 Sun
This is the same fight the scoobs have had over and over,
starting with WttH/The Harvest:
The Harvest:
Xander: So, what's the plan? We saddle up, right?
Buffy: There's no 'we', okay? I'm the Slayer, and you're
not.
Xander: I knew you'd throw that back in my face.
Buffy: Xander, this is deeply dangerous.
Xander: I'm inadequate. That's fine. I'm less than a man
WSWB:
BUFFY: Look, this is Slayer stuff, okay? Could we have just
a little less from the civilians, please?
The Yoko Factor:
Willow: Look, I'm not the one being judgmental here. I'll
leave that territory to you and Buffy.
Buffy: Judgmental? If I was anymore open-minded about the
choices you two make my whole brain would fall out!
Xander: (to Willow) Oh! And superior. Don't forget that. (to
Buffy) Just because you're better than us doesn't mean that
you can be all superior!
He walks past her and crosses his arms as he leans against a
cabinet dresser behind her.
Buffy: You guys, stop this! What happened to you today?
Willow: It's not today! Buffy, things have been wrong for a
while! Don't you see that?
Buffy: What do you mean wrong?
Willow: Well, they certainly haven't been right, since Tara.
We have to face it. You can't handle Tara being my
girlfriend.
Xander: No! It was bad before that! (he steps out in between
them again) Since you two went off to college and forgot
about me! Just left me in the basement to-- (turns on Willow
in shock) Tara's your girlfriend?
Giles: (from upstairs) Bloody hellll!
Buffy: Enough! All I know is you want to help, right? Be
part of the team?
Willow and Xander shake their heads, grumbling.
Willow: (unison) I don't know anymore.
Xander: (unison) Really not wanted.
Buffy: (raising her voice) No! No, you said you wanted to
go. So let's go! All of us. We'll walk into that cave with
you two attacking me and the funny drunk drooling on my
shoe! Hey! Hey, maybe that's the secret way of killing
Adam?!
Xander: Buffy . . .
Buffy: (hurt and angry) Is that it? Is that how you can
help? (a beat) You're not answering me! How can you possibly
help?
They don't reply and turn their eyes away from her. She
regards them silently for a moment.
Buffy: (somberly) So . . . I guess I'm starting to
understand why there's no ancient prophecy about a Chosen
One . . and her friends.
Voynak Ate My Thread -- Haecceity, 12:12:26
11/17/02 Sun
Leading one to immediately wonder…
A.) Voynok—singular? as in…”Hey! That voynok ate my thread!”
Plural? As in…”Hey! Those voynok ate my thread!” One
singular sensation? As in…”Hey! What’s up with Voynok? Has
he been eating threads again?”
And…
B.) Will I ever get that kid from Monster Squad’s whiny
little voice, “Monster stole my (don’t remember the
noun—blankie? food item?)” out of my head?
Despite my best efforts,
“Big Ticking Bomb Clock” “’24’ Parallels?”
I couldn’t get to the board in time to post to my now-
archived thread, so I’m starting another. Fair warning,
these are Really Freaking Long. Have been wondering, in
fact, if they might be Too Long. (Is that a thing on the
board? Don’t remember seeing anything about it, but could’ve
missed the most obvious of guidelines.)
See, there was this storm last night…
That knocked out all the power. But had loads of candles, 2
freshly charged batteries for the laptop, lots of Tom Waits-
ness for the Discman…
(Now there’s a scene for Firefly—writing e-mail by lantern
light.)
…and with nothing else to do, just kept on wagontraining,
er, writing.
---Haecceity
[> Dark Sides, Dark Nights: Belated(Really Freaking
Long)Reply to Shadowkat, Part One(Spoilers, S5-7) --
Haecceity, 12:15:43 11/17/02 Sun
Shadowkat,
Right there with you on the Freud thing.
As for being a comic book geek---I aspire to such a state. I
wasn’t big into them as a kid, but when I noticed that some
of my favourite, favourite authors (Harlan Ellison, Neil
Gaiman) were writing for comics, I thought I’d look into the
genre. So I started reading Sandman, and things have never
been the same. Now I’m going back to grad school (starting
January, just got my acceptance letter today!) for a
Master’s in Visual Narrative, and will be studying comics as
a part of the program. (Have been considering doing my
thesis on extended narrative arcs in visual narrative forms,
hence my adoration of BtVS)
Re: Literal/Metaphorical Meanings and Exploring our Dark
Sides
“We can be grateful for our enemies, for their darkness
allows us to escape our own.” --Jung
Why BtVS is powerful and provocative and very, very
important—the “enemies”, i.e. various demons, vamps, BBs
(or, conversely and more humorously—Mutant Enemy/ies) make
(will make) each character face the darkness in her/himself
and come to some sort of mutually satisfactory pact with
each other. Come to think of it, a recognized and well-
integrated dark side would function quite a lot like late
Season 5 Spike---all energizing “Big Bad” bravado, good in a
fight but harmless to the Self, and dependably sharp at
reading complex situations and pointing out important
truths.
Trouble is, our shadow side doesn’t come equipped with a
handy dandy government chip to make it harmless and more
easily approachable. Nor is there an owner’s handbook. The
exploration of one’s dark side is a frightening concept that
I haven’t yet found a great definition/recipe for. Does it
mean mere acknowledgement? Or is there some sort of action
that must be taken? I think this is where people get
confused on the whole “Explore your dark side” advice. Is
explore a literal or metaphorical verb? Checking the box
that says “sometimes I wonder what it would be like to kill
people” doesn’t equal checking the box that says “sometimes
I like to kill people.” Though generally I think just asking
this question wigs people. (Except maybe florists ;)
We are a creative species, and we recognize the power of the
imagination, so I think we associate think/act in a causal
manner. When you factor powerful emotions like fear and
desire into that equation, it is understandable that we
oftentimes try to avoid altogether the possibility of
finding out what we are capable of.
I think dark urges are evolutionary leftovers. Capabilities
we once needed that have gone unused, buried by changing
social dictums. But still there, primal and almost
unrecognizable, now that we act in other ways. (First
Slayer, anybody? And notice how Buffy dealt with her? By
confusing her, then declaring that she (Buffy) would ignore
her until she (First Slayer) went away. Methinks the seeds
for Buffy’s current problems lie in her refusing to deal
with the source of her shadow side at the end of Restless.
Notice how much more she’s been playing “The Slayer” since
she’s come back?)
“Is last year about the exploration of the dark urges and
this year about becoming conscious of these urges,
comprehending them, and emerging from them whole?”--
Shadowkat
I think so. Teaching us how to deal with different aspects
of ourselves is one of the primary functions of Art, and I
think all of Joss’s shows are very good at letting us
explore our own feelings through the intermediaries of his
complex, incredibly “human” characters. (Terribly funny that
two of his *most* complexly multi-faceted characters, the
ones we readily identify with---Angel, Spike--- are
vampires.)
Shadowkat wrote:
“Lots of people react to the following statement in the
literal sense and get offended:
’Explore your dark side. Acknowledge and become conscious of
the dark urges.’
They think we mean that someone should literally go out and
explore what it's like to do nasty things. Uhm no. That's
not it. Although must admit there are a few posts I've seen
on the boards that make me wonder if the poster doesn't mean
it in this way.”
Well, there do seem to be a lot of demons on this board.
;)
“Is that what Season 5 was about - duality: normal girl vs.
slayer girl, robot vs. human, prom queen vs med student cool
guy...Is Dawn - the metaphorical return? Makes me remember
April's last words in IWMTLY - "It's always darkest before
the Dawn."—Shadowkat
Well, I think duality is what every season is about. Duality
seems to be the major theme in many, many hero stories (like
every comic book hero who wears a mask, ever), and I think
the reason for this stems from that difficulty in
understanding dark sides we just discussed. The greatness of
Season 5, though, lies (IMO, anyway) in it’s exploration of
the duties we assign to, the sacrifices we
demand/expectations we have of heroes.
Buffy and the role of the hero:
Much has been written of heroes battling demons, but what of
that other demon haunting the hero?
Our (audience/society) expectations. We expect the hero to
travel through tragedy, hardships, and we expect them to
handle it heroically.
“You’re the hero, get over your griefs, fight the demons,
save us. And once the day is saved, go away, end the story.
We don’t want the everyday, aging, normal human side of a
hero. (The example that leaps to mind is the treatment of
Vietnam soldiers in films vs. the treatment of RL Vietnam
vets during the late ‘80s. Oh we loved those films of
beautiful boys dying for who-knows-what, but we certainly
weren’t terribly interested in the survivors.) We like to
see normal people become heroes, but we don’t care about the
normal everyday actions/mundane life of a hero. We don’t
want them to be ordinary humans. They are supposed to BE
their role.
Buffy is guilty of this too, in her reaction as conflicted
Slayer. She fights hard against the “Not Fair!”-ness of
being Chosen, and as a result has idealized the world of the
“Normal Girl”—hasn’t seen clearly/acknowledged the day-to-
day difficulties of being nothing but normal with no super
powers to help her through things---witness Buffy’s total
comfort walking alone, anywhere, at night---a freedom few
normal girls ever experience---because she knows that with
her powers she can handle anything that might threaten her.
Up to her return (with, perhaps, the exception of her
mother’s human death), Buffy’s never been held truly
accountable to the Real World, faced the consequences of
being normal, thus flawed, weak, un-Chosen. The real point
of Jonathon’s speech in Earshot—those who haven’t
looks/athleticism (Super Powers) to fall back on can only do
the best they can with what they do have.
Everyday people are resentful of any whining (justified or
no) from heroes. So too for being forced to see the ordinary
problems of heroes—“You can’t be ordinary, because I am not
extraordinary. We are not the same! You are our chosen. You
get super powers because we expect you to carry the “Weight
of the World”, without complaint. That is your duty, your
privilege, and your price.”
Is it any wonder that Spike has sensed a death-wish in these
girls? They are servants to humanity—missing out on so many
of our more quiet joys. They do not get to keep long any
happiness they may earn. Everything is up for sacrifice to
the needs of the society that chose them. They shoulder the
tragedy so we don’t have to, their short lives delegated to
a world of blood and terror. In this light, society might be
the greatest vampire of them all.
Buffy’s Death: A hero’s sacrifice as giving the bird to
society.
Slayers all have an expiration date on the package. Sooner
or later they die, preferably while saving the world from
total disaster, or at least a really nasty bad, but often as
not (so Spike asserts) in giving up their lives willingly,
too tired/disillusioned to go on. Since day one Buffy has
been told that her Slayer duties come before her life. Of
course, they refer to her ‘personal life’ mostly, but down
to brass tacks Buffy is a martyr-hero who must be willing to
give up everything she holds dear to save the world. Which,
despite a few squabbles and lots of tears, she does.
(Seasons 1-3, certainly. In 4 she’s off to college, and like
so many, begins to see new possibilities)
But Season 5 asks how much pain do our heroes need to take
to satisfy us? The loss of her mother, the threatened
destruction of her sister (a personified duty thrust upon
her, but a girl she has come to love as part of herself), a
god she cannot match, an unstoppable apocalypse looming, and
a society who, okay, feels sorry for her, but keeps asking
what she’s going to do to solve everything. The world has
wrenched the things she loves away from her one by one …
(Note that this doesn’t include her friends, who are
becoming more and more important to her as time passes. This
is because her friends ARE society, they are us to a great
degree, and are most often the ones to express society’s
wishes to Buffy. More on this later.)
…but we (through “logic”, “necessity”) go too far, we ask
her to give up her most cherished desire when we tell her
the way out is to kill Dawn, the innocent normal girl part
of herself. We demand that she stop wishing to be normal. To
us she is only allowed to be the Slayer. We expect her to
give in.
But Buffy is stubborn. Buffy will win. The brilliance of
this show is that it plays so powerfully with our
expectations and Buffy’s desires.
(And the meta-narration blurs the line between art and
audience completely, especially with the interactivity
they’ve acknowledged, we’ve sensed--the creators responding
to our reactions.)
It is integral to Buffy’s nature to fight not only demons,
but authority, and that includes “us”. She says, in effect,
okay, I’ll save the world. Again. I’ll make the gesture, but
the self I wanted to be will live. I define my heroism. I
determine what I will give. And she takes her Slayer Self
and dives off the tower, wearing white, offering wise words
to those left behind (us). (But Buffy wins. Dawn lives.) And
we cry cathartically and exclaim over her greatness, see her
refusal to kill Dawn as a greater level of heroism, rejoice
in her very useful suicide. Then we bury her beneath a stone
that defines her in our terms---Sister, Friend, Daughter---
and praises her highest (to us) quality. She saved us. A
lot.
Then we brought her back. Because her friends/society/we
weren’t ready to let her go, because our Tuesday nights
needed her, because it’s so much easier to have a designated
hero than to battle our own demons.
Any wonder she was pissed? But Buffy’s an experienced hero;
she knows her “part”… Hello Season Six. The “dark night of
the soul”, indeed. But again the dark side of our naked need
for heroic heroes. Witness fan reaction to S6---
disappointment with day-to-day tribulations (finances, bad
relationships, depression, dead-end job), “fighting HUMANS,
for crying out loud!” (not seeing [at first, anyway] that
the Troika represented the true horrors of top-of-the-food-
chain social predators---our killing of each other, our own
dark sides’ ability to destroy us.)
And we raged against her--“What the hell is WRONG with
Buffy?” And her friends wondered about her abilities--
“What’s WRONG with Buffy?” And her frustrated animus (having
troubles with his own dark side) saw an opportunity to claim
her as his own—“You came back WRONG”. And Buffy punished
herself for being WRONG, doing WRONG, wanting WRONG.
And the gentle, generous spirit who’d found a balance with
her own dark side long before, who’d come through the
darkness with a new light, told her—“There’s nothing WRONG
with you.”
So Buffy “disconnected” from everything, began trying to put
herself back together, quietly. And all of a sudden,
everyone else went WRONG. Willow began getting a little
darker in every spell. Xander left Anya at the altar, Anya
backslid to vengeance demon, Dawn became a thief, Spike had
a meltdown, and the Troika became truly evil. And the
beautiful soul who’d taught us so much about how to build a
strong, transcendent, loving self was killed by humanity’s
dark side given free rein.
So Buffy snapped back into “Hero” mode, leaving her
fledgling attempts to “find herself” undone. Again. And
found herself prevented from rescuing the world, her power
as “savior” usurped by Xander, the bumbler, the human, the
heart.
In Season Seven, everything’s up for grabs. Including the
roles of hero and rescued.
End of Part One
Join me for Part Two, in which I defend Allegory as a
favourite art form. And then on to Part Three, in which I
actually get back to the point. Then you can beat me with
sticks and tell me to WRITE LESS!
---Haecceity
[> [> Re: Dark Sides, Dark Nights... --
Sophomorica, munching on chocolate chip cookies, 15:10:41
11/17/02 Sun
I think dark urges are evolutionary leftovers.
Really?
Terribly funny that two of his *most* complexly multi-
faceted characters, the ones we readily identify with---
Angel, Spike--- are vampires.
See, you don't really.
Everyday people are resentful of any whining (justified
or no) from heroes.
No, I hate whining from everybody. I don't see Dawn as a
hero, and I can't stand her whining. My apologies to HonorH.
’Explore your dark side. Acknowledge and become conscious
of the dark urges.’
They think we mean that someone should literally go out and
explore what it's like to do nasty things. Uhm no. That's
not it. Although must admit there are a few posts I've seen
on the boards that make me wonder if the poster doesn't mean
it in this way.”
Well, there do seem to be a lot of demons on this board.
;)
[chokes on cookie] I, uh, mumble mumble...uh.
I suspect that exploring one's dark side, whether
figuratively or literally, is necessary for a person to
learn about themselves, others, and thus, grow. We have seen
Buffy do exactly this. What was that fling with Spike? A
primal urge. A piece of her darkness, shadow-self. She
treated him like dirt and saw his reactions and responses.
She learned about relationships, herself, and grew up a
little bit. This is not to say that one should go out and
abuse people, but without her acting out her dark side,
there would have been nothing to, uh, film.
Is it any wonder that Spike has sensed a death-wish in these
girls?
Ann Rice "Interview with a Vampire". Louie had a death wish.
When Lestat came to grant it, Louie found that he could only
choose immortality as a vampire. Louie quickly discovered a
limit of his capacity and dark side – he could not choose
death. We know Spike is inclined to give his, uh, victims,
"the choice". He gives Willow "the choice" and she chooses
death, but fortunately for us?, Spike is unable to bite/kill
her. But Spike did not sense any "death wish" in Willow, or
if he did, he did so mistakenly. One has to doubt his
ability in this arena. This all begs the question: How does
a vampire decide to vamp a living person? In the mood?
Looking to make a companion? Thought the person was cute?
Thought the person would make a good minion? Carry out
orders? To vamp someone with a death wish is sort of ironic,
as this really puts the person farther from death by making
him or her immortal.
[> [> Beautiful analysis of fan reaction to season
6 and season 6. More on Dawn/Jonathan -- shadowkat,
17:23:35 11/17/02 Sun
This was truly wonderful.
What I love most about this post is it crystallized some of
my own thoughts regarding how we view heros in our
society.
You’re the hero, get over your griefs, fight the demons,
save us. And once the day is saved, go away, end the story.
We don’t want the everyday, aging, normal human side of a
hero. (The example that leaps to mind is the treatment of
Vietnam soldiers in films vs. the treatment of RL Vietnam
vets during the late ‘80s. Oh we loved those films of
beautiful boys dying for who-knows-what, but we certainly
weren’t terribly interested in the survivors.) We like to
see normal people become heroes, but we don’t care about the
normal everyday actions/mundane life of a hero. We don’t
want them to be ordinary humans. They are supposed to BE
their role.
Buffy is guilty of this too, in her reaction as conflicted
Slayer. She fights hard against the “Not Fair!”-ness of
being Chosen, and as a result has idealized the world of the
“Normal Girl”—hasn’t seen clearly/acknowledged the day-to-
day difficulties of being nothing but normal with no super
powers to help her through things---witness Buffy’s total
comfort walking alone, anywhere, at night---a freedom few
normal girls ever experience---because she knows that with
her powers she can handle anything that might threaten her.
Up to her return (with, perhaps, the exception of her
mother’s human death), Buffy’s never been held truly
accountable to the Real World, faced the consequences of
being normal, thus flawed, weak, un-Chosen. The real point
of Jonathon’s speech in Earshot—those who haven’t
looks/athleticism (Super Powers) to fall back on can only do
the best they can with what they do have.
And yet in Helpless in Season 3, Buffy is forced to be the
normal girl. Unable to fight the demons with her
superstrength she must use her wits. So even without the
superstrength? Buffy is forced to be the hero. There's
really no escape.
I find it interesting how much of the fan base adores
Jonathan. Jonathan represents the weak normal guy who
couldn't fight off the bullies but always wanted to, who
wanted to date the popular girl but was never asked, who
didn't have that many friends, and well the ordinary
everyman if you will. Dawn is actually in a lot of ways,
ironically enough, the female counterpart of Jonathan. Odd
how many fans claim Dawn is whiny yet love Jonathan.
Personally I always viewed it the opposite way around,
Jonathan always seemed far more whiney and self-pitying to
me and for far less reason. (But I appear to be in a
minority of one on this point, so I figure it's just a
personal thing.)
Anyways - Dawn and Jonathan more than Xander or Willow or
Cordelia are the ordinary/joe normals. The kids who wish and
dream of being the superheros, who think it's a picnic and
play with the weaponery. And fantasize about what it is
like.
Dawn fears her sister will turn away from her, won't save
her. Yet in Conversations works to save her mother with a
spell. Just as Jonathan works to redeem himself with the SG
by uncovering the seal. One wonders if both caused more harm
than good with their innocent attempts to be the hero?
For Dawn - it's just a game playing hero alone in her house,
while her sister is outside really fighting the vampire.
Dawn envies her sisters atheletic ability, super-powers and
hero's life - yet, her sister? envies dawn's.
Her sister literally died so that the normal part of her
could live.
Come to think of it, a recognized and well-integrated
dark side would function quite a lot like late Season 5
Spike---all energizing “Big Bad” bravado, good in a fight
but harmless to the Self, and dependably sharp at reading
complex situations and pointing out important
truths.
Interesting. Hadn't thought of that. But it's so true. Spike
is the tame shadowself with the chip. But when the chip no
longer works towards the self - he becomes frustrated
animus, thinking the self has something wrong with it and
tries to claim it for his own. And the self almost lets him.
Then horrified at what it almost did?
Does the opposite extreem rejects him entirely sending the
animus reeling into a complete meltdown. To survive the
animus hunts it's own self separate from Buffy and returns
fractured and insane. Parts of it reeling out of control and
others barely kept in check. Tucked in the basement of the
boiling pit of the self. Is that what the basement of
Sunnydale and the thing that resides there represents?
The boiling pit of fear, doubt, pain, etc in our
subconscious selves? (shrug)
At any rate - I loved your response.
Thanks.
[> In Defense of Allegory: Reply to Shadowkat, Part
Two (All Spoiler-free) -- Haecceity, 12:18:29
11/17/02 Sun
“And as Burgess aptly states in his forward to A Clockwork
Orange - if a character is not transformed in some way at
the end of the story - the story is not much more than an
allegory.”---Shadowkat
In an example of exquisite irony, the term Allegory doesn’t
actually mean what we’ve come to think it means. Its name
has been abducted by that rascal Parable, that fiend Moral
Lesson, its meaning stretched thin and ill-fitting over
their bloated Victorian forms, then (as of late) torn and
patched scattily…
(a word? Or trying to cheat at Scrabble?*[From Eddie Izzard,
the “Emperor Fabulous” of Intelligent comedy)
…over every post-modern, “high-concept” story that stood
still long enough. This is a damned shame, as it’s one of my
favourite art forms and people think I’m a real nutter when
I say so. Allegory is not “the tale with a moral”, but
rather a story that tells us a truth through lies and
manipulative double talk, featuring not characters but
personified abstractions—players with identities like
Everyman, Love, Loyalty, Justice, Honor, Wisdom and such.
So, why do I adore allegory? Because I love to play.
Allegory is to Story What Art is to Life, What Chess is to
War, What Meditation is to Thought: About Metaphorical
Mirrors and Reflection--------
***All quotage below is from “Allegory: The Dynamics of an
Ancient and Medieval Technique” by John Whitman, Harvard
University Press***
“From its beginnings, allegory has been known as an oblique
way of writing. Despite various attempts to explain it in
its literary form, it still conceals many of its secrets.
Modern readers, indeed, may be inclined to leave it to its
own mysterious ways. To us, obscurity is at best a sign of
the author’s elusiveness, and at worst an indication of his
bad faith.”
--Funny, this sounds an awful lot like the praise we grant
Joss when we call him a genius. Perhaps we like our geniuses
inscrutable and secretive?--
“In either case it seems to be an obstacle between us and
the truth…In our concern for clarity, however, we might
remember that what we take to be our simplest expressions
often conceal a multitude of obscurities. It is not only
that a single name can refer to many things and a single
thing be called by many names…It is rather that our very
drive for clarity generates obscurity as a by-product…If we
may borrow a phrase from allegory, our language constantly
tells us that something is what it is not…There have been
attempts…to remove…obscurities from our language and
thought. Perhaps the most successful approach to the
problem, however, has been to exploit it. For the fall from
our pristine state of language [simple words, plain truth, I
take this to mean—plus the falling away of the concrete
sensory world to the abstract thinking world of words] has
not been a total loss. As a result of it, we have
constructed a most beautiful consolation for our exile [from
truth-only language, I assume], the solace of fiction.
All fiction—the very word confesses its exile from the
truth—tries to express a truth by departing from it in some
way. It may embellish its subject, rearrange it, or simply
verbalize it, but in every case, that ancient dislocation of
words from their objects will keep the language at one
remove from what it claims to represent. Allegory is the
extreme case of this divergence. It seems to refer to
something in the fiction, but actually refers to something
else in fact. Allegory turns its head in one direction, but
turns its eyes in another. In the traditional formula, it
says one thing, and means another.”
In other words, Allegory is Trickster-Truth. A fitting
discussion subject given topics addressed in “Conversations
With Dead People”, I thought. And you just happened to
mention it…Synchronicity strikes again.
“In its obliquity, allegorical writing thus exposes in an
extreme way the foundation of fiction in general. That fact
is sometimes ignored by those who concentrate upon other
kinds of writing. Allegory is…outspokenly reticent,
proclaiming it has a secret, while other techniques tend to
conceal that fact. From the beginning, the practitioners of
allegory have claimed that it provides initiation into a
mystery. Whatever the value of that claim, perhaps the
technique offers a kind of initiation into some of the
mysteries of fiction itself.”
There’s been lots of debate about whether allegories have
real characters or mere personifications. This section below
attempts to demonstrate that, like all creative endeavors,
allegorical writing (and, perforce, its characters)
experienced evolution—growth, adaptation to stimuli,
etc.:
“As the figures of the ‘Cosmographia’ (a Medieval allegory)
move up and down in the universe, they enact not only the
program of god but the possibilities of man, who by the
close of the allegory is about to emerge as an individual in
his own right, confronting the very dualities which compose
him. A generation later, in the “Complaint of Nature”, the
individual himself is the central witness to the allegorical
plot, which plays out before him his own moral and
imaginative dilemmas. [When] the individual personality
[eventually comes] to the narrative foreground…[it is as
a]consciousness interacting with an array of abstract
possibilities, systematically deployed on their own terms.
In trying to coordinate such figures, that consciousness is
seeking at the same time to order itself; the very operation
of the allegory thus depends increasingly on the modulations
of the human mind. [By the time of ] the Divine Comedy (late
allegory), the individual’s constant movement outward to
explore the figurative world coincides with his constant
movement inward to compose himself—a center that seems
forever to recede with each advance.”
In my mind’s eye I’ve always seen Allegory as an arena of
story—a contained and abstracted world that we bring
everything we know about life to—in which to explore our own
selves, a way to consider ‘personalized’ abstractions. It’s
odd, I suppose, but I’ve always felt personification was an
act of endearment, an invitation to share our humanity with
the very inhuman concepts/forces of the universe.
In my head this tiny reflective world looks very like that
ancient game of labyrinth, but with assorted clay figures
arrayed on interweaving paths, some clumped together, most
alone, traveling convoluted roads that no matter their
twists and turnings lead to the center.
“At once slipping away from its object and toward it,
allegory is always seeking to come to terms with the
disparities of its world and its own technique. The
technique of allegory seems to make a comment not only about
itself, but upon those who explore it—and finally, about
every search for the causes of things. Such explorations are
forever aspiring toward a fulfillment that lies beyond them.
They may point the way toward an end; in themselves, they
remain always a beginning.”
Some folks may not like the idea of allegory because it
smacks of formality and intractable pre-destination of
characters, but I find taking a form with strict rules and
playing between its boundaries, examining permutations and
possibilities, mucking about with time-tested notions in a
self-contained world, is exhilarating. In classical ballet a
movement must begin and end in one of the five positions. In
between is dance. In chess you start at one end of the board
and move toward the other. In between is a world of
conflict, strategy, gain and loss. We are bounded behind by
birth, ahead by death. We live free between these
thresholds—the in-between is where we fly.
Allegory is very much a mirror. It doesn’t show you the
truth (the actual thing), just a reflection of a truth. It
is an abstraction, a distancing technique, like meditation.
It helps one focus on the problems of abstract thought, much
as playing chess distances one from the trauma of actual
battle with its life and death decisions. Allegory is not
for the everyday, or for a majority of fiction exploration.
It is a highly ritualized contemplation, and I think it’s
very important to remember that allegories are not often for
the benefit of their characters* (see confessional note).
They are for the elucidation of their audience/author. And I
like that while the invitation reads bring/create your own
interpretation, allegory keeps its secrets. Eternal
mysteries are always exciting and new, even more so when
they are as familiar as your own ever-evolving self.
Remember: Narrative is not Life. It just feels like it.
;)
So, enough verbiage off what you thought was a throwaway
quote? That’s a lesson from the Buffyverse right there,
isn’t it? Careful what you throw away, someone could come
along and write 3 pages about it and never get to the topic
you *wanted* to talk about ;)
---Haecceity
Who (‘fessing up big time here) has actually written an
allegorical Buffy script
(* in an earlier form of allegory, that of the “Dream” or
“Revelation”, wherein a character’s [Everyman Xander, of
course;) Everyman is the name of a very well-known Allegory]
conflicts are played before him, but in which he
participates, and at the end must act to affirm/reaffirm his
place in his own life)
which, (had she known as much about the TV industry as she
thinks she does about film), she might have got sent in
before the last season got underway! Oh the consequences of
being trained a film snob!
[> [> Very intriguing and thank you for it. A
little more on Burgess quote -- shadowkat, 13:39:42
11/17/02 Sun
Burgess's quote for all fairness should be explained, so
here it is in full from the new edition of A ClockWork
Orange where the 21st chapter is included. (It always was
included in the European version. The New York publisher
felt he sold out, so didn't include it. And Kubrick's film
also left the chapter out.)
Before i do the quote - a brief description of A Clockwork
Orange. It is a story of a boy who rapes, kills and
vandalizes with a gang of juvenile delinquents. After a
pretty gruesome rape and murder, he is captured by the
government and conditioned to abhor violence - basically all
violent acts make him physically ill along with his favorite
strand of music Beethoven's Fifth which they play in the
background while conditioning him. In the movie and American
and Europe versions - a group of dissidents which include
one of his victims, capture him, torture him, and break his
conditioning. Then he has the choice whether to go back to
his old ways or move past them, learning nothing. There are
21 chapters in the European novel and only 20 in American
and in Kubrick's film. In 21 chapter which numerically was
supposed to symbolize growing up - the boy realizes how
horrible his past was and wants a different type of future.
Now here's the quote:
" There is no hint of this change of intention in the
twentieth chapter. The boy is conditioned, then
deconditioned, and he foresees with glee a resumption of the
operation of free and violent will. 'I was cured all right.'
he says, and so the American book ends. So the film ends
too. The twenty-first chapter gives the novel the quality of
genuine fiction, an art founded on the principle that human
beings change. There is, in fact, not much point in writing
a novel unless you can show the possibility of moral
transformation, or an increase in wisdom, operating in your
chief character or characters. Even trashy bestsellers show
people changing. When a fictional work fails to show change,
when it merely indicates that human character is set, stony,
unregenerable, then you are out of the field of the novel
and into that of the fable or the allegory. The American or
Kubrickian Orange is a fable; the British or world one is a
novel."
Okay...I'm not sure Burgess is saying doing allegory is a
bad thing so much as he prefers the novel as the completed
work of art.
Kubrick loved allegory. Besides A Clockwork Orange - the
Shining fits this. Stephen King's the Shining ends with a
redemption of the main character. Kubrick's ends with the
main character condemned. Stephen King viewed Kubrick's
version as hurting the audience. Having read and seen both
versions? I prefer Kubrick's. Why? Because it says something
about evil and the human condition that I felt lacking in
the original - it scared me. It also says that sometimes, we
can't climb back. But allegory and fables are useful - in a
different way - they show us a problem and make us look at
it. As one might stare at a distorted photograph and
suddenly see something they hadn't before.
Short fiction often operates in this fashion. But from a
visual media perspective? Try the old Twighlight Zone
series. Those were a series of fables and allegories. Or
Outer Limits.
Film - i think is a perfect medium to explore the allegory
or fable - partly because you are so limited by time and
budget, etc.
Comics also occassionally delve into this - the one shots
are great examples. A one-shot comic is a story that is self
contained in one magazine and not continued over a numerous
number of them. Most of the comics I've read are serial -
they go on forever.
I'm not sure which narrative style Whedon and Me are
pursuing here. I doubt it's totally allegory - since the
show is not anthology in nature. But there are episodes that
I would define as allegory. The Wish - perfect example.
Where we see a slice of what could be and no character is
truly transformed at the end by their experiences. No one
appears to remember the AU.
Throughout time - we have taught each other morals and
solved problems through the use of fables, myths,
parables.
A novel may just be an advancement of this narrative
form.
But to disparage the allegory in defense of the novel is to
do both a disjustice. It's like the sculpture disparaging
the drawing. Yes, one may be three-dimensional, but the
other is just as valid and just as wonderful.
Thanks again for making this clear. When i read Burgess'
quote, I wondered about allegories, having written quite a
few myself, not about Btvs...
SK
PS: No where near tired of your writing, you are rapidly
becoming one of my favorite new posters. Where have you been
hiding yourself? ;-) And Congrats on your acceptance to grad
school. Quite envious that sounds like an intriguing area to
study in.
(Oh and apologies to the copy-editors for typos, spelling
errors, etc - was trying to get this posted before got cut
off and my typing is atrocious.)
[> [> [> Burgess and Chapter 21 (Spoilers for
Clockwork Orange) -- Fred the obvious pseudonym,
18:35:06 11/17/02 Sun
I've read both versions of the book & seen the film.
Disliked Chapter 21. It seemed to me as out of place as "The
little boy fell out of bed and woke up."
There was nothing in the Alex of Chapters 1-20 that implied
such a transformation. Sloppily handled, in my opinion.
I prefer my redemptions foreshadowed.
[> [> [> [> Re: Chapter 21 (Spoilers for
Clockwork Orange) -- lachesis, 08:52:14 11/18/02
Mon
I see what you mean, but I have to disagree in defence of
Burgess. There is one thing, and one thing only, which
connects Alex in the other chapters to Alex in Chapter 21 -
his humanity.
The main part of the text incorporates a number of
distancing factors (the language, the subcultural context,
the bonded male 'tribal' group, and the ultraviolence) which
allow the reader a comfort zone from which it is equally and
simultaneously possible both to demonize Alex, and to revel
vicariously in the utter amoral 'freedom' which he
represents. The conditioning then becomes a critique of the
rights of authority.
But as such it is in no way radical: for this is the answer
that we all already know. Personal freedom is attractive for
ourselves, but terrifying in others. We, who are responsible
(as society defines it) should have freedom. They, who are
not, should not. The distancing factors above create Alex
and the Droogs as 'They.' Whatever the reader's abstract
position on the political and moral issues raised about
authority and the *degree* of its rights over the
individual, this underlying social issue is not in question.
It is the reality and mainstay of 'civilized' life.
Conditioning, control, do not redeem Alex. Instead, they
remove his last connections to society (his cultural
appreciation) and reduce him to the level of an
animal/automaton. Thus we can sympathize with his successful
struggle against them. At the end of Chapter 20, therefore,
he is simply an anti-hero. An enemy of the state, whom we
love to hate, are ashamed to love, and hope never to
meet.
Chapter 21 is certainly essential to the text as an
exploration of the relationship between mainstream and
subcultural British societies, which was (IMO) its main
contemporary relevance. The violence/style combination of
the film is extreme and deliberately iconic, but this is too
often allowed to obscure the fact that the book is a
perceptive and relatively realistic extrapolation of this
linkage in British subcultures, and that this was a serious
social issue at the time (and later, and still, to an
extent, today).
As such, Chapter 21 says two things: firstly, that young
men, despite the slang, and the violence, and the weird
makeup, are not demons - they can grow up to be husbands and
fathers, simply because they are human. And the wider point:
that true freedom is not found outside of society, in
automatic rebellion, but within the individual.
For most of the book, Alex is restricted to gratification.
As a clockwork orange, he is just restricted. Chapter 21
raises the possibility of *fulfillment* as opposed to
gratification. Only in Chapter 21 is Alex free, not enslaved
by his violent desires, which isolate him from other people,
or by the state. But he doesn't get redeemed. His sins, the
sins of the state against him, can hardly be forgotten, and
are not redressed. He just grows up, realising that the
choice is, and has to be, his. Both of his previous states
(Droog, Clockwork Orange) are presented as
adolescent/infantile, static, and therefore undesirable.
This is a fundamentally different social and philosophical
statement from that of the rest of the book (which
represents the conflict between the individual and society
as unresolvable) but it is not unrelated because Alex has
*learned* from, been changed by, experiencing both
perspectives. It is in doing so that he demonstrates his
humanity (animals/automata don't learn so well) and
collapses the distance between himself and the reader, so
that he is no longer safely 'beneath us.'
And to link this to BtVS, Spike has experienced the same
three state evolution: static adolescent (vampire) static
infantile (chipped vampire) and dynamic/free-willed (vampire
with soul). The consequences remain to be seen.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Chapter 21 (Spoilers
for Clockwork Orange) -- Rahael, 09:17:34 11/18/02
Mon
"And to link this to BtVS, Spike has experienced the same
three state evolution: static adolescent (vampire) static
infantile (chipped vampire) and dynamic/free-willed (vampire
with soul). The consequences remain to be seen."
Well put, Lachesis!
Can I just say how satisfied I am with the way ME have
handled Spike? All my fears about the soul and redemption
have been dismissed. They've laid the emphasis on free will,
and how we constitute ourselves as members of society, and
not on some kind of metaphysical, glowy redemption.
[> [> [> [> A Clockwork Castration --
Tchaikovsky, 09:13:44 11/18/02 Mon
Disagree really strongly here, for several reasons.
Burgess had a very carefully constructed structure going on,
which was formal and crucial to the understanding. There are
three parts to the original British edition. Each have seven
chapters. Each section begins with the mantra, 'What's it
going to be then, eh?'. It seems an unspectacular mundane
sentence. That's part of the point. It's about Alex having a
part of himself which is entirely normal- which is about
having a quiet drink with his friends. Without Chapter 21,
the formal structure goes down, which castrates the novel,
like taking out one of the playing cards from those
elaborate triangular towers.
In terms of just the story? It weakens it too. In part one,
our, (the reader's) reaction is to think that anything that
the Authority can do to stop Alex is justifiable. Despite
being apparently cultured and talking to us first person,
his actions come across as too nasty for words. We almost
cheer when we see him taken in.
In Part Two, we reform our opinion, as Alex is forcibly
reformed himself. This is not right. It not only denies free-
will, (like a prison), but it almost denies humanity. It
reprograms, at a basic level, what intuitive responses to
behaviour are. And this is even more wrong than Alex's
hedonistic binges. The Beethoven is like the final twisting
of the knife. Even the most innocent pleasures of our
narrator become horrible.
In Part Three, we see how this hasn't helped at all. But we
are made to reform our opinion once again. Time can heal
what forcible behavioural change can't. People will grow up
and calm down. Allow time for growth, and human interaction,
(there's none from parents or authority figures to Alex in
the book which trusts him or even believes that he is worth
talking to), and the violence can be got out personally.
It is a truthful ending. One which Burgess wanted and
needed. Without it, the book both destroys the author's
message, and distorts its tidy structure. Long live Chapter
21.
TCH
[> [> Excellent Defense of Allegory --
lachesis, 15:42:23 11/17/02 Sun
Thanks for this, it was fascinating, and I shall be looking
out for the book. I agree particularly with you here:
"In my mind’s eye I’ve always seen Allegory as an arena of
story—a contained and abstracted world that we bring
everything we know about life to—in which to explore our own
selves, a way to consider ‘personalized’ abstractions. It’s
odd, I suppose, but I’ve always felt personification was an
act of endearment, an invitation to share our humanity with
the very inhuman concepts/forces of the universe.
In my head this tiny reflective world looks very like that
ancient game of labyrinth, but with assorted clay figures
arrayed on interweaving paths, some clumped together, most
alone, traveling convoluted roads that no matter their
twists and turnings lead to the center."
One of the things I find so fascinating about BtVS is the
way in which the characters manage to function *both* as
convincing and evolving personalities, and as figures in the
cosmology of the Buffyverse, or 'personalized
abstractions.'Also, it strikes me that we sometimes
overestimate the need for consistency on the allegorical or
figurative level - to an extent, each episode can be a
(somewhat) independent arena, I think.
Thanks again!
[> Rambling Through the Dark Woods: Reply to SK, Part
3(Tiny Restless Spoiler [hee,hee, neat visual]) --
Haecceity, 12:22:01 11/17/02 Sun
“I think we are revisiting past seasons. Flipping them on
their side and looking at them from a more cynical and
darker perspective. The dark night of the soul indeed.”---
Shadowkat
I think so too. “The past is prologue.”—The Tempest
“Buffy and Angel are experiencing their own versions of the
dark id. Angel from the perspective of an old man - looking
back - dealing with his son, his friends, and his own baser
impulses. Angel's story is more like Humphrey Bogart's in
Casablanca, it is about the man who must incorporate the
dark baser impulse and use it to understand and defeat a
greater menace, without letting that impulse overtake him or
giving into it's temptations. It parallels Buffy's story but
is not the same as it, what ATS says metaphorically is quite
different than Buffy in some ways - it goes to a different
place. As Whedon states - ATS is about noir - film,
detective...and we can use the more fantastical mythical
elements in that but must make sure they fit the noir. Buffy
on the other hand is more about growing up. About the
emotional journey we take as we mature.”---Shadowkat
Agree—see my answer to Age, “Quick half-answer and a note on
‘Supersymmetry’”, for more on Buffy/Angel/Ripper
parallels.
” So Buffy's friends like Buffy are experiencing their own
dark nights of the soul - but we are watching their
journey's through Buffy's perspective.”
I’m not at all certain we’re seeing all that much from
Buffy’s perspective. As you’ve commented before, each
episode this season seems to be written from different
character’s perspectives---which fits very nicely into the
whole post-modern, interactive art paradigm BtVS seems to
inhabit. I think Buffy, as the hero, is certainly the
catalyst, but we’re being drawn into other characters’ POVs
pretty intensely/regularly these days.
“I think the key to understanding what is going on with
Spike and everyone else this season is understanding the
importance of and meaning of understanding and acknowledging
the darker baser impulses, the primal if you will. And I
think this theme was foreshadowed in RESTLESS, the first
slayer representing that impulse and what happens when it
goes unacknowledged in each characters psyche.” ---
Shadowkat
Yes! See my first really long response for more on this.
Ok, think I may have exceeded my word-limit for the week.
Especially on a thread “destined” to be buried by new
“Angel” talk tonight and new “Buffy” by Tuesday. Have to
admit, though, this “really long post” volley has been fun.
Thanks!
---Haecceity
[> On Free Will, Art and Why Firefly Works (Or
Will)—Replies to Age(very vague spoilers, Firefly) --
Haecceity, 12:25:31 11/17/02 Sun
In reply to--- Subject: Re: A few comments including this
week's(Spoilers S5,6,7/S4 AtS)Spec In Archived Thread--Post-
Dramatic Stress
Age,
Truthfully, finding it hard to come up with anything clever
in response. The only thing I’ve been able to say so far in
checking through your post is…
Agree, agree, agree!
Especially love your notion regarding the BBW as cranky
adolescent. And your idea of old notions/external forces vs.
new ideas of self/internal drive is really beautiful. That
seems to be what this quote I dug up is about:
“A more fully differentiated nature, in Jungian terms, means
being more conscious of each of the four functions of
consciousness; Thinking (Mind/Giles), Feeling
(Heart/Xander), Intuition (Spirit/Willow) and Sensation
(Hands/Buffy)…Once a more differentiated consciousness has
been attained, however, another process takes over whereby
life and life activities become more directly driven by the
Self. It is as if to say, the initial task of individuation
is to develop a more complete, less one-sided consciousness
and then the task becomes being an instrument of the
Self.”
“What Jung referred to as the individuation process remains
a natural movement of life; it is not something outside of
life or special in any way, but it does involve a deliberate
concentration of this natural dynamic and eventually a
spiritualization of nature.”
---Both from “The Individuation Process and Creative Life”,
David A. Johnston, Ph.D.
Seems to go along well with the differences between BtVS and
AtS (and hoped-for Ripper) we discussed, this first bright
spark/leaping flames/steady blaze notion of a spiritually
aware being.
In Reply to-- Subject: Re: On Free Will, Spoilers for
Firefly, Buffy S5-7.
You wrote:
“Joss Whedon is certainly making this [instinct toward
individuation vs. drive toward security/stability] clear in
his new series 'Firefly' where the need for security and
stability has overtaken the central planets in the form of
the Alliance. This is not to say that the dichotomy in this
series is between the haves and the have-nots, the modern
city dwellers and the rural inhabitants on the outskirts
(although quite clearly the gap between the two has been
shown in several episodes). No, in a recent episode Whedon
used the inhabitants of a rural community to illustrate the
type of society one gets if you try to make your life simple
and easy: you give in to myth for expediency; you kidnap the
people that you need; and when things don't work the way you
want them, you get rid of your problem no matter what the
human cost.”
This is a remarkable clarification, Age. I can’t help but
think that this would clear up a lot of confusion some folks
seem to be having regarding the ‘point’ of Firefly.
“Whedon seems to be hitting home in all three of his series
how difficult it is to live as a human being in this world.”
---Age
This IS the function of art, no? To be the mirror we hold up
to our lives? Though sometimes I wonder if Joss throws a Fun-
House glass into the mix every once in awhile;)
Re: Free Will
I’m not much beyond Buffy’s point on the path yet, so I’m
not at all certain of the existence of either Free Will or
Destiny. I know I have a violently negative thought reaction
to the idea that all things are pre-determined, but that is
probably a function of my age rather than anything inherent
in the notion of destiny. And I concede the point that there
is incredible personal freedom to be found once one accepts
his pathway…
(See my Defense of Allegory post to Shadowkat for more re:
the life as in-between-ing and just about anything Jung
wrote on the idea of synchronicity)
…but I’m young and my future still seems so full of ever-
branching paths. From this perspective it is hard to believe
faithfully that they all lead to the same place. But I do
love this idea of yours—
“awareness [is what] changes the situation from simple
determinism. The act of being alive, of being aware, is a
special causal element. I think this is what Whedon is
getting at in his series: it's all determined, even having
will and awareness; and these latter two are still part of
the chain of cause and effect, but being alive, being aware
gives us the opportunity to make choices in our lives. The
exertion of will from awareness also allows us to let go of
what we call ourselves and our situation in order to balance
out our struggle between the need for fluidity and stability
in our lives.”
Seems to support the notion of synchronicity as I understand
it, that notion of the universe rewarding awareness with
possibility.
And this is some of the highest praise I’ve ever heard for
an artist (hope he reads it!):
“The hardest thing in this world is to live in it. Children
don't live in this world, they play in it; robots simply
follow the dictates of their programming; and vampires try
to take the easy way out, try to simplify their lives
through aggression, and die to the their human selves.
Whedon is charting metaphorically the difficult journey that
we have in becoming adult human beings. In doing so, in
acknowledging how difficult it is, he is both exhorting us
to remain alive and not throw away our birth right as human
animals, and telling us, through the most universal of
media, television, that we aren't alone in our struggle:
we're all connected.”
I love your writing style—fluid, pure, powerful in its
seeming simplicity.
Not all rambly, disconnect, toss-everything-in-at-once with
threaded parentheses like mine. I once had a professor who
said my casual writing was reminiscent of Delerium’s
(Sandman character) thought process. Still don’t know if
that was praise or censure. Probably both. He was a ringer
for “trickster of the week”. Oh well, so long as you get
what I’m saying and no fish begin appearing out of thin air
it’s all good, right?
Really looking forward to tonight’s ration of doled-out
puzzle pieces. Funny how high the pitch of anticipation is
in the audience this season. My feeling is that it is in
direct response to how closely ME is playing their cards,
and that they are deliberately slipping more subtle,
intriguing (in the original sense of the word) clue-age in
just to heighten their own pleasure in the “what if…” game.
With all this fever-bright excitement and wild bounding
theories on the board, I can’t get that old Chinese proverb
out of my head… ”You should not confuse the sound of your
heartbeat for the hooves of approaching horses.”
Thanks for your insight and wisdom and beautiful
writing.
---Haecceity
[> [> Agree. thanks for the insights on free
will/determinism. (Spoilers for Help, 7.4) -- shadowkat,
13:58:29 11/17/02 Sun
"Re: Free Will
I’m not much beyond Buffy’s point on the path yet, so I’m
not at all certain of the existence of either Free Will or
Destiny. I know I have a violently negative thought reaction
to the idea that all things are pre-determined, but that is
probably a function of my age rather than anything inherent
in the notion of destiny. And I concede the point that there
is incredible personal freedom to be found once one accepts
his pathway…
…but I’m young and my future still seems so full of ever-
branching paths. From this perspective it is hard to believe
faithfully that they all lead to the same place. But I do
love this idea of yours—
“awareness [is what] changes the situation from simple
determinism. The act of being alive, of being aware, is a
special causal element. I think this is what Whedon is
getting at in his series: it's all determined, even having
will and awareness; and these latter two are still part of
the chain of cause and effect, but being alive, being aware
gives us the opportunity to make choices in our lives. The
exertion of will from awareness also allows us to let go of
what we call ourselves and our situation in order to balance
out our struggle between the need for fluidity and stability
in our lives.”"
Agree entirely. I too am uncertain about this free will vs.
determinism thing. And find I have a negative reaction to
the view that all our actions are predetermined on our
biological makeup and environment. It seems, well a bit
pat,
to me. Does this mean we're doomed to never rise above our
imperfections? Doubtful - I was born with visual and
auditory dyslexia which made it difficult for me to learn
how to read and write, I did not in fact read a novel until
the 4th and 5th grades. Once I figured it out? I read Lord
of the Rings in 6th grade. So clearly my biological
limitations did NOT determine whether I could become a
writer.
But I'm not sure that's what Age and the other's mean.
Since Age states: "The act of being alive, of being aware,
is a special causal element. I think this is what Whedon is
getting at in his series: it's all determined, even having
will and awareness; and these latter two are still part of
the chain of cause and effect, but being alive, being aware
gives us the opportunity to make choices in our lives. The
exertion of will from awareness also allows us to let go of
what we call ourselves and our situation in order to balance
out our struggle between the need for fluidity and stability
in our lives."
That i do believe is true. So clearly determinism does not
rule out an ability to choose. But what does it mean
exactly? That our choices will inevitably lead to the same
result? But like Cassie, Dawn and others state in the
episode HELP - sometimes the littlest things make a
difference. Yes - Cassie died in HELP, but Buffy made her
death less solitary and worthwhile. Cassie made friends with
Dawn and was able to give Buffy and Spike a chance to save
her. Small things maybe. But sometimes it's the small things
that count. So maybe the idea of free will is we have a
small window of choice within the determinism - the will to
choose whether to get up in the morning, smile at our
neighbor, quit a job before killing our boss...not jumping
off a bridge...or writing a book?? Just like buffy can
choose who she slays - I mean what would have happened if
she chose to kill Angel in Season 1? Or to take another
view? Whedon and the writers chose the major strokes, but if
James Marsters portrayle of Spike hadn't been so charming,
Whedon would have staked him. The actors choices, however
minute may change how the character evolves in the
writer/god's mind - maybe taking the character in a
different direction than writer/god had determined?
[> [> [> Interpretations -- Fred the obvious
pseudonym, 18:40:16 11/17/02 Sun
Point: in some ways the characters and stories depart from
the control of the writer. He/she cannot push them in other
directions without being untrue to what she/he has made them
in the past. This may not be literary predestination but
could be a limit on the freedom of the writer.
Second possibility: "from beneath you it devours." I'm not
up on my Freud. Could this be a reference to the "id?" I was
under the impression that under some interpretations of
Freud that the id was seen almost as the "basement" of the
human mind -- "beneath" the ego and superego. Could this be
a reference? (IF this has been brought up before, I
apologize.)
[> [> [> Another Descartian duality --
Tchaikovsky, 09:39:43 11/18/02 Mon
It's always interesting to think about free-will and
determinism. Is there fate in the real world? Probably not.
It's probably just the disguising we do of being unable to
interpret and understand all the choices we make both
scientifically and psychologically. If we had 20/20 vision,
we could see our path clear to doing anything, taking in
everybody else's motivations, and the scientific results of
our physical actions.
But is there Fate in the Buffyverse? A force which denies
free will? Well, there certainly appears to be something
close to that. There's Tara's death. But then there's things
which appear to be co-incidental, but actually aren't. Angel
may never have met Buffy, and not become fascinated by her,
if it wasn't for Whistler. Whistler was a crucial link in
the mythos. But Whistler is almost an allegorical (dare I
use this word after such a masterful essay by H?)
personification of Fate. It is his job to make Angel meet
Buffy. To turn him into a force for good. He has been sent.
He is not so much deus ex machina as deus ex mundi- his
intent is for only one thing, but he is entirely believable
in the context of our story.
Whether or not there is Fate or merely Free Will, there is
an interesting interaction between real life and the life of
Sunnydale. As you mention, James is charismatic, so they
don't kill Spike. If Sarah and James have such marvellous
chemistry in 'Fool For Love' it is a factor in getting them
together. Actors interpretations prefigure character
development, and characters development prefigures actors
interpretations. There's a duality between what needs to be
in real life, and what happens in Sunnydale. But also
between what happens in Sunnydale, and what needs to happen
in the story configured in Joss' mind.
If Seth Green has to leave, then it brings in Tara. To an
extent, the 'fate' aspect of the Buffyverse could be seen as
an aspect of real life. Because of considerations of actor's
contracts, relationships happen as they do.
If Whedon is God, (the big bad of 7.22, of course), then he
can change the Fates of the characters. But the character's
representations through the actors can change God's mind.
Does Buffy have free will over Joss, in a perverse sense?
Can we affect our lives' courses by determination to
accomplish or become one particular thing? Of course we can.
Ultimately, Fate is an excuse.
TCH- rambling incoherently, but coming to a melodramatic
conclusion nevertheless
[> [> Another Descartian duality --
Tchaikovsky, 09:42:14 11/18/02 Mon
It's always interesting to think about free-will and
determinism. Is there fate in the real world? Probably not.
It's probably just the disguising we do of being unable to
interpret and understand all the choices we make both
scientifically and psychologically. If we had 20/20 vision,
we could see our path clear to doing anything, taking in
everybody else's motivations, and the scientific results of
our physical actions.
But is there Fate in the Buffyverse? A force which denies
free will? Well, there certainly appears to be something
close to that. There's Tara's death. But then there's things
which appear to be co-incidental, but actually aren't. Angel
may never have met Buffy, and not become fascinated by her,
if it wasn't for Whistler. Whistler was a crucial link in
the mythos. But Whistler is almost an allegorical (dare I
use this word after such a masterful essay by H?)
personification of Fate. It is his job to make Angel meet
Buffy. To turn him into a force for good. He has been sent.
He is not so much deus ex machina as deus ex mundi- his
intent is for only one thing, but he is entirely believable
in the context of our story.
Whether or not there is Fate or merely Free Will, there is
an interesting interaction between real life and the life of
Sunnydale. As you mention, James is charismatic, so they
don't kill Spike. If Sarah and James have such marvellous
chemistry in 'Fool For Love' it is a factor in getting them
together. Actors interpretations prefigure character
development, and characters development prefigures actors
interpretations. There's a duality between what needs to be
in real life, and what happens in Sunnydale. But also
between what happens in Sunnydale, and what needs to happen
in the story configured in Joss' mind.
If Seth Green has to leave, then it brings in Tara. To an
extent, the 'fate' aspect of the Buffyverse could be seen as
an aspect of real life. Because of considerations of actor's
contracts, relationships happen as they do.
If Whedon is God, (the big bad of 7.22, of course), then he
can change the Fates of the characters. But the character's
representations through the actors can change God's mind.
Does Buffy have free will over Joss, in a perverse sense?
Can we affect our lives' courses by determination to
accomplish or become one particular thing? Of course we can.
Ultimately, Fate is an excuse.
TCH- rambling incoherently, but coming to a melodramatic
conclusion nevertheless
[> [> [> Re: Another Descartian duality --
Pilgrim, 11:30:40 11/18/02 Mon
Hmmmm. Duality? Or, I don't know, what you're describing
seems more like a dialogue, give-and-take, back-and-forth.
Fluid, even. Not so much a line between opposing or distinct
phenomena. I do think there's something to "fate," perhaps
because I can't quite believe that I'm utterly free to
create of myself any sort of person I choose. But maybe
there's a creative dialogue between what I choose, and what
I want, and what outside forces (biology, upbringing, past
choices, etc) seem to want of me.
Loving this thread.
[> [> [> [> Free Will, Determinism, and
Another Metafictional Meditation -- cjl, 11:58:15
11/18/02 Mon
In the modified version of my little playlet about Buffy's
final encounter with the Evil Demiurge (I think it's still
in the BC&S archives if you want to look), Joss says to
Buffy that he's the Creator, but he's not God. I think to
Joss, the concept of "God" implies omnipotence and the
deterministic outlook on the universe, and Joss is a
proponent of free will. I think that's why, in the end, my
version of Joss perversely (and yet logically) betrays his
own aesthetic principles as a storyteller and artist and
allows Buffy her happy ending.
Or, if want to look at it from another angle, you could also
say Joss loves all his characters very much, and love is
something that the PTB can never take into account...
[> [> [> [> This thing called fate and the
dark side -- Caroline, 07:47:44 11/19/02 Tue
I think that in psychological terms, it is really difficult
to reduce our behaviour and our relationships to both the
external and internal worlds to the fate/free will
dichotomy. So often what seems 'fated' in our lives is some
previously unknown part of ourselves, some unrealized
potential rearing its head to our conscious mind. Part of
the individuation process is precisely getting to know these
parts of ourselves consciously, whether through an internal
process of event or something from the external world that
challenges views/ideas/identities that we hold dear. Once
these elements are made conscious, the power they have over
our lives in terms of compulsive actions, whether conscious
or unconsious, is diminished. We use the term 'fate' to
describe a event or process that comes into our lives that
we somehow seem helpless to prevent. And looking over it
afterwards, we see the 'rightness' of that process or event
in terms of our own psychological growth and think that it
was 'destined'. Whether it is fated or not, I don't know.
Whether there is a 'divine creator' of some kind, whether
there is a collective unconscious that we tap into or
whether we are our own divine creators and our minds are
like icebergs and only a small part is visible I don't know.
It would seem to be that all of these are constructs that
could be used to describe the origins of 'fate'. But we also
have a conscious mind and a personality which does have the
capacity to choose how these unrealized potentials/parts of
Self are used. Perhaps if we were perfectly rational minds
without any unknown or repressed elements of our
personalities then we could argue that we are 'free' to
create ourselves. But it appears to me that the process of
the development of identity is a mediation of the polarities
of conscious and unconscious, of what seems fated and what
seems will and it's difficult to know where one ends and the
other begins.
There's a quote by Jung which I've quoted before but I think
is very apt here: "Free will is the ability to do gladly
that which I must do".
Since this seems to be coming up again and again, (in
Haeccity's and shadowkat's posts) I reiterate my earlier
points about the exploration of the 'dark side'. I do not
think that there is any responsible theorist of practitioner
of psychology who thinks that it is ethical or moral to
explore one's darker impulses in such a way as to cause harm
or injure others in any manner - emotionally, physically
etc. But at the same time, by denying these elements of our
psyches, we lay ourselves open to causing harm to others and
ultimately ourselves because of the compulsive nature of
repressed or unknown elements of the psyche. One of the
benefits of any form of therapy is precisely to stop
destructive and self-destructive behaviours. One of the
goals of therapy is greater self-knowledge, not greater
harm. We try to get a greater understanding of ourselves and
precisely what our darker impluses are so that they can be
understood, known and contained. We learn who we are and the
unconsciously destructive elements of our lives then lose
their power over our behaviour. We are then free to live
lives that are less destructive to ourselves and others.
Perhaps I should just save a standard response in a file on
my hard drive and post it every time this point comes up.
Otherwise, I am really enjoying this thread.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: This thing called fate
and the dark side -- leslie,
09:30:56 11/19/02 Tue
"I do not think that there is any responsible theorist of
practitioner of psychology who thinks that it is ethical or
moral to explore one's darker impulses in such a way as to
cause harm or injure others in any manner - emotionally,
physically etc. But at the same time, by denying these
elements of our psyches, we lay ourselves open to causing
harm to others and ultimately ourselves because of the
compulsive nature of repressed or unknown elements of the
psyche."
This is how I would put it: By denying THE EXISTENCE of the
darker elements of our psyches, we become doomed to express
them in socially acceptable but still (self)-destructive
ways. Acknowledging "darkness" doesn't mean you must act
upon it by going out and indulging every random urge, any
more than acknowledging that you are hungry means you have
to eat two dozen donuts at one sitting.
[> [> Re: On Free Will Spoilers -- Age,
10:57:44 11/18/02 Mon
Thanks. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to your
thread.
In this free will and determinism discussion, I just wanted
to say that by changing free will to will and awareness, I
was trying to synthesize the two opposites. I just don't
think that our condition can be reduced strictly to either
category.
Thanks again.
Age.
[> Haecceity you rock the free world! Amazing posts
all! -- ponygirl, 08:21:31 11/18/02 Mon
[> [> (Blushing) Thanks. But does this mean...
-- Haecceity, 12:18:50 11/18/02 Mon
...that I get to roll the Destined World? 'Cause sign me up
for some of that Cosmic Bowling right there!
---Haecceity, appreciating the thought
[> [> ditto, this is a thread full of many
philosophical depth, kudos -- Etrangere, 15:54:09
11/18/02 Mon
[> [> Likewise on the amazing. And don't worry,
Haecceity-- 'cos *FreakingLong ' r' Us" !* -- OnM,
20:34:52 11/18/02 Mon
[> [> [> Hmm...wonder if I could get that on a
novelty mug... :) (NT) -- Haecceity, 22:54:03
11/18/02 Mon
[> Here’s Where I Confess… -- Haecceity,
12:14:15 11/18/02 Mon
I’ve not read the book, Chapter 21 version or otherwise, so
don’t feel I can really comment on it much. Saw the film,
but am not terribly objective because I (Sorry, Shadowkat)
despise Kubrick. (Kind of surprised no one kicked me out of
film school for that one;)
The story seems less Allegorical, though, than---(I don’t
have the “right” word for it.) Symbolist? Iconic? These type
of works seem to focus on telling stories where one *thing*
"Stands For" some*thing* else, which is slightly, so very
slightly different from Allegory’s typical m.o. of *action
and speech* implying one idea, but meaning another. Also,
allegories seem to be less about nouns and ideologies than
larger, more intangible Intangibles—things like Love or
Wisdom, etc., something that is a quality rather than a
noun.
Which is why I think there might be some confusion remaining
over the whole “Allegory = a story in which characters do
not change/grow” idea. If you look at a large number of
allegories, there is at least one (usually just the one)
character that does—Man, Everyman, etc., whichever character
represents the “human” POV. All of the other characters
(personifications, all) CAN NOT change, because they are
qualities only, the great intangible forces of the universe.
They are what they are and cannot be anything “other than”.
One of history/art/philosophy’s strongest arguments of what
makes humans “Human” is their capacity for change.
Allegories illustrate how interaction with unchanging forces
affects (consciously and subconsciously, thus the
“trickster” delivery of meaning) a person. Man
reveals/defines his character in his action/reaction to
Love, Truth, Death, etc.
I think the personification angle comes in because we
fear/don’t particularly understand these Cosmic Forces.
Personification/anthropomorphization (a word? I’m winning at
Scrabble today!) makes them “relatable”, as though Love’s
caprice is more understandable if she’s a vivacious,
irresistible woman who’s dyed her hair. Personhood gives
them reason, desires, motivation—whereas in RL they are
amorphous. Not “Good”, not “Bad”, just Powerful.
Sound familiar?
---Haecceity
P.S. I really want to get into this deeper—all of you have
posted such exciting/intriguing notions—but I’m stuck at
work at the moment. So, more later!
[> [> Question for the King of Allegory --
Tchaikovsky, 12:44:09 11/18/02 Mon
If you have a moment before you start bowling the world,
that is!
Anyway, is 'Pilgrim's Progress' an allegory? I'm trying to
think back over novels/books (I don't suppose Bunyan's book
really is a novel), that would fit into your description. Is
our hero the everyman, while the people who represent
Anglicanism and Catholicism and Lust and so on are only
qualities which people espouse?
I don't think I'd consider either the novel or the film of
'A Clockwork Orange' an allegory, incidentally. However, I
think the book is more worth reading than the film is worth
watching. Particularly if you're not a fan of Kubrick.
If nothing else, there's the crazy and compelling 'nadsat'
language.
TCH
[> [> [> Allegory defined, Spike, and more
quotage on what Burgess thought -- shadowkat,
15:29:41 11/18/02 Mon
Getting awfully confused about allegory so for purposes of
arguement -I did look it up in the American Heritage
Dictionary:
1. The use of characters or events to represent ideas or
principles in a story, play or picture.
2. A story, play or picture in which such representation
occurs.
Under this definition? A Clockwork Orange the movie is an
allegory. The journey of Alex is meant to represent a
specific idea - the idea of how society should not
recondition its inhabitants. Alex himself is not transformed
in any way. The main point of the movie is NOT Alex's
transformation or the characters growth as it is the "idea"
of how conditioning, while on it's service a good idea, is
possibly bad in practice.
Another example of allegory? George Orwell's Animal
Farm.
The point of Animal Farm is to explore how the idea of
socialist reform by revolution does not work. The characters
are used to re-inforce the idea.
Let's try another example: Twilight Zone.
There's an episode in Twilight Zone where a woman is
undergoing surgery, she wants to be beautiful. We spend 30
minutes never seeing hers or anyone's face. But lots of
dialogue about Beauty. At the very end: We see her and she
to us is beautiful not ugly, then we look at the doctors and
they are pig-faced and to us ugly. The message? Beauty is
what society dictates. We don't remember the characters - we
remember the idea.
While there can be well-developed characters in an
"allegory" - the point is the idea or principle that the
author wants to push. The main point of Burgess' novel was
not that we shouldn't condition people, that's the allegory
and he was unsatisfied with that. He didn't like the moral
that stuck out like a sore thumb and states in his forward
how disappointing it is that he will be remembered for this
novel over works he far prefers. Here is some quotes to give
you a better idea what Burgess says about those who loved
the film and what he thinks of his own work;
"I first published the novella A Clockwork Orange in 1962
which ought to be far enough in the past for it be erased
from the world's literary memory. It refuses to be erased
however, and for this the film version of the book made by
Stanley Kubrick may be held chiefly responsible.....
It seems likely to survive, while other works of mine that I
vlue more bite the dust."
"..my New York publisher believed that my twenty-first
chapter was a sellout. It was veddy veddy British, don't you
know. It was bland and it showed a Pelagian unwillingness to
accept that a human being could be a model of unregenerable
evil. The Americans, he said, in effect, were tougher than
the British and could face up to reality. Soon they would be
facing up to it in Vietnam. My book was Kennedyan and
accepted the notion of moral progress. What was really
wanted was a Nixonian book with no shred of optimism in it.
Let us have evil prancing on the page and, up to the very
last line, sneering in the face of all the inherited
beliefs, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Holy Roller, about
people being able to make themselves better. Such a book
would be sensational, and so it is. But I do not think it is
a fair picture of human life. "[this is not to say of course
that allegories don't provide fair pictures of human life of
course.][brackets are my thoughts]
"I do not think so because, by definition, a human being is
endowed with free will. [funny how we get back to the free
will debate..isn't it?] He can use this to choose between
good and evil. If he can only perform good or only perform
evil, then he is a clockwork orange - meaning that he has
the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice
but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or
the Devil or (since this is increasingly replacing both) the
Almighty State. It is as inhuman to be totally good as it is
to be totally evil. [Hmmm Age's robot metaphor comes to
mind]. The important thing is moral choice. Evil has to
exist along with good, in order that moral choice may
operate. [Perhaps this is what the BB wants to do away with?
Maybe this is why it has grabbed control of Spike? It
doesn't like balance?] Life is sustained by the grinding
opposition of moral entities. This is what the television
news is all about. Unfortunately there is so much original
sin in us all that we find evil rather attractive. To
devastate is easier and more spectacular to create. We like
to have the pants scared off us by visions of cosmic
destruction. To sit down in a dull room and compose the
Missa Solennis or The Anatomey of Melancholy does not make
headlines or news flashes. Unfortunately my little squib of
a book was found attractive to many because it was as
odorous as a crateful of bad eggs with the miasma of
original sin.
It seems priggish or pollyannish to deny that my intention
in writing the work was to titillate the nastier
propensities of my readers. My own health inheritance of
original sin comes out in the book and I enjoyed rapping and
ripping by proxy. It is the novelist's innate cowardice that
makes him depute to imaginary personalities the sins that he
is too cautious to commit for himself. But the book does
also have a moral lesson, and it is the weary traditional
one of the fundamental importance of moral choice. It is
because this lesson sticks out like a sore thumb that I tend
to disparage A Clockwork ORange as a work too didactic to be
artistic. It is not the novelist's job to preach; it is his
duty to show. I have shown enough, though the curtain of an
invented lingo gets in the way - another aspect of my
cowardice.Nadsat, a Russified version of English, was meant
to muffle the raw response we expect rom pornography. It
turnes the book into a linguistic adventure. [The book is
written in a made-up and somewhat offensive slang -
including descriptions of sex such as the "old in-out, in-
out".] People preferred the film because they are scared,
rightly, of language."
Okay and finally - he states that it is up to the reader to
decide if the twenty-first chapeter enhances the book or is
a discardable limb. He meant it to end this way, but admits
his judgement could have faulty. "Writers are rarely their
own best critics, nor are critics. [Wholeheartedly agree
with this!]....We can destroy what we have written but we
cannot unwrite it....Eat this sweetish segement or spit it
out. You are free."
Methinks Mutant Enemy tells us the same thing. If you don't
like the story we have decided to tell you? Turn it off. But
we can't undo it. It is done. And there it is for your
critique.
Regarding free will? I'm somewhat confused regarding the
philosophy here. I tend to agree that our biological makeup,
environmental factors, experience will to one degree or
another pre-determine our choices, but we do have a will
separate from nature and any gods that may or may not exist.
We also have the ability to be aware of the choice and the
consequences resulting from it. To say what we choose does
not matter or that our actions do not derive from the
choices we make? Seems to be an excuse. I don't believe we
are robots. We are connected to one another - true. And our
choices influence each other. Just as Burgess' decision to
write ClockWork Orange influenced numerous artists. But
within all that lies the choice whether to be influenced by
it, to see the movie, to read the book. And what notions if
any to accept from the work.
Back to allegory - I think there can be allegorical elements
within a work. Sometimes characters do represent ideas. For
example - see C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels - where numerous
characters represent Lewis' Christian notions.
Or the use of Buffy as a feminist icon. Or Spike - the idea
of arrested development, then the government's desire to
condition criminal elements, and finally the idea of moral
choice.
Alex is not redeemed at the end of A ClockWork Orange. Nor
is he condemned. The author leaves that up to us. Whether
Whedon will do the same with Spike is well anyone's guess. I
am waiting to see how Spike reacts once the chip is removed
and he is free from the BB's control or I have evidence of
that, to make a determination. Right now Spike still
resembles a clockwork orange to me or at least to the BB.
Doomed to do evil acts. I haven't seen him freely choose
evil yet. Angel on the other hand - I've seen do this on
more than one occassion - killing the lawyers, and
a few other acts in Season 2 Ats. So the jury is out right
now on where Spike is going and whether the writers plan on
him being more than a metaphor for Buffy's subsconscious
urges or a metaphor for the inability for something evil to
change.
Tis true - we've seen Spike as arrested adolescent
(vampire), conditioned infantile - doing good but no harm
since the urge for instant gratification is contained
(chipped vampire), now we're at chipped/vampire with soul
(which I guess is where Alex was in Clockwork ORange - the
man with the conditioning). We're not at free will quite
yet. Or awarness. Since Spike may not be aware of anything
he does - and if he isn't? Where's the choice? So we may
have will but no awareness. And the will may be
another's.
(quite depressing when i think on it). Which means - until
Spike can choose for himself whether or not to bite or kill
or maim without something forcing him to do it or something
like the chip preventing him from doing it - he's still a
clockwork orange - isn't he?? And the soul as defined by
Whedon? Means zip. Except that as Willow states - he feels
awfully bad about everything he does. (ie. He can't choose
not to leave the towels on the floor, but he can feel quilty
once he realizes he left them there. (sigh.).)
Okay hoping now that I haven't confused everyone else trying
to make sense of the free will and allegory posts above. I'm
a bit dense I'm afraid - sometimes need to write it out to
figure it out. Assuming I did and I'm still not horribly
confused. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Heart attack alert: Shadowkat
claims: 'I'm a bit dense I'm afraid' in above post --
Tchaikovsky, 03:04:12 11/19/02 Tue
What does that make the rest of us?
And thanks to everyone involved in this thread for their
deeply intelligent (and in no cases dense, in this sense at
least) comments.
[> [> [> [> Free? Will? -- lachesis,
12:41:53 11/19/02 Tue
I've always found 'free will' one of the most difficult
concepts to discuss, maybe because it is basic to how I see
the world. (Shadowkat, your posts are never dense in that
sense, and even if you were to be confused, I'm sure it
would be interesting and not horrible for the rest of us. I
always admire your clarity).
I actually think that the Clockwork Orange angle is fairly
fundamental to what is going on with Spike in S7 (and in
general, because although the accent and look were there
from the start, the aspect of characterization which really
constructs him as a *British* Punk – various movement
mannerisms – are more recent). And, although it has been
discussed quite thoroughly before, I do think that the terms
of the discussion have been completely altered by Spike’s
acquisition of a soul. Conversely, it seems to me that the
argument from Clockwork Orange is one of the main signals so
far that the soul means more than zip.
I agree with you that in real terms, Alex as clockwork
orange, and Spike with chip *and* soul, are equivalent –
both have the potential for free will, but are conditioned.
But I would argue that in terms of the Buffyverse, this
equivalence breaks down, because, whereas Alex’s
transformations are effected on a purely psychological level
(not until the final transformation is he capable of
'actualizing his potential' for free will) Spike’s are
changes of state, or of nature, and it is by his *reacting*
to them that psychological change is effected, just as
Spike’s conditioning had two distinct forms, the
implantation of the chip, and his gradual adaptation to the
lifestyle it enforced. And so, although the chip remains,
Spike has still changed state in a fundamental way.
Also, Alex pre-conditioning was just adolescent, not
artificially arrested, and simply ignorant of his potential
for free will, as someone might be poor because they do not
know that they have inherited riches. Alex could have
spontaneously achieved maturity at any point, and in the
end, his experiences are catalyst, not cause, of the final
revelation. Spike on the other hand, as a vampire, had
already had his potential for free will removed by demonic
possession. His transformations must therefore have an
external component.
Because of the extra layer that the Buffyverse adds (not
just change of psychological state, and of behavior, but
also of nature) I think that the analogy between Alex and
Spike is really only exact on a basic level of ‘state of
being:’ both are static, static, dynamic. (And until ‘Grave’
the analogy might equally have been with the 20, or the 21
chapter, text). But I think that the analogy is still
relevant. Alex’s revelation hinges on the realization that
he was not really more free before the conditioning than
during it. Sure, he didn’t live by society’s rules, and he
had himself a gang, and maybe that looked to us and felt to
him like freedom, particularly in contrast to the
alternatives presented by those around him. Certainly, it
was all of freedom that he had ever known, and he missed it
once it was gone. All of which one can also say of Spike.
Before ‘Grave’ we expected Spike to break conditioning in
the same way as Alex did, removing the chip, as a pre-
condition of any eventual change. But that would still have
left him unable to “choose for himself whether or not to
bite or kill or maim without something [demon] forcing him
to do it.” Perhaps more significantly, he would still be no
“more than a metaphor for Buffy's subconscious urges or...
for the inability for something evil to change.”
S6 Spike also experiences a revelation. We are initially
misled into thinking that he has finally found reason to do
what he could have done at any point, remove the chip, break
the conditioning. Only once it is revealed that he has
gained a soul does it become clear that Spike has realized
that, whatever else he was as an unchipped vampire, it
wasn’t *free.* But you are quite right – with the chip in
place, he cannot *manifest* free will. Nevertheless, the
essential change is that for the first time since 1880, the
potential for it is again part of his nature. And this time,
the psychological change actually came before, and effected,
the change of state. This demonstrates that he is no longer
a metaphor for the stagnancy of evil, while simply
possessing a soul automatically puts him on the same level
of metaphorical expression of Buffy’s subconscious as other
‘people.’
I think that my real difficulty with ‘free will’ is that I
regard it as a quality of self, not of circumstance. As
human beings, we can make choices and be responsible for our
own mental, physical, and spiritual well-being (this would
be my very simplistic definition of free will). However, the
specific choices we make (as opposed to our capacity for
choice) are constrained by circumstances, ranging from our
culture and how we were raised and educated, right through
to whether the item we planned on buying is actually
available. Sometimes I choose to make mushroom soup, but
there aren’t any mushrooms in the shop. So I don’t, I make
carrot soup instead. My choice has been compromised, but not
my ability to make decisions.
Which brings me to insanity, and awareness, and here I have
to disagree with you. I do not believe that to be insane is
to lack self-awareness, but rather to lack
a) accurate or consistent perceptions of how others see you
(which would let you pretend to be ‘normal’) and
b) the ability to communicate your self-aware perspective.
I’d point out that madness is an excellent metaphor for
fluidity and dynamism, and also that these are the qualities
of thought and experience that often characterise the state
of madness.
So, at the moment, Spike is very much constrained by
circumstance, but this does not change his *capacity* for
free-will. Acquisition of the soul seems to have driven him
mad. Some kind of entity is messing with his vulnerable
mind. He appears still to be conditioned by the chip (CWDP,
not even going there for the purposes of this discussion).
His freedoms of action, reaction, and expression, seem, in
short, to be much more limited than last year. But his state
of being is fundamentally different: he can choose now to be
evil if he wants, to be disgusting, but he *cannot* choose
to be a thing.
Hmmm. I'm not actually sure if that made sense, but thanks
for making me think more deeply about it. And thanks to
Haecceity for starting an excellent thread.
[> [> [> Allegory, Yes? Or…No? (Or maybe “Hell,
why not?”) -- Haecceity, 22:37:22 11/18/02 Mon
Tchaikovsky,
Were I to accept that mantle, (which I sooo am not *near*
qualified for), it would be more like “princess” or better
yet, “minor countess and the youngest of ten to boot”.
Anyone suggesting “goose girl” would not be far off. ;)
As to your question re: Pilgrim’s Progress---
Oh, I don’t know. It’s been so long since I’ve read it, but
my *very* hazy recollection of it suggests that it is a work
that was inspired by the traditions of Parable and a form of
allegory know as a Morality Play. But as the
Personifications you mentioned,
“Is our hero the everyman, while the people who represent
Anglicanism and Catholicism and Lust and so on are only
qualities which people espouse?”---Tchaikovsky
are a mix of ideologies and Forces, my helpfully definitive
answer would be…“Maybe, Maybe Not, but I think not.”
Of course, I’m basing my answer on my *very* rigidly defined
term of Allegory, which may not even be the correct one. I
think part of the problem we face in saying “this is
allegory, but this is not” is that there is an historical
line of evolving story technique under the heading of
“Allegory”. One comparing the Psychomachia (“Battle of the
Soul”) to Dante’s Inferno, both defined as Allegory, would
see the huge chasms between the two, due mostly (oh, I
presume much in these next few sentences!) to their form of
delivery.
The allegories I’ve referred to in the majority of my posts
are those that take the form of Plays or Visual Art, whereas
the works we’ve been discussing—Pilgrim’s Progress, the
novel A Clockwork Orange, etc. are meant to be read. I
assert that allegory requires a visual component, mostly
because it deals in making abstract principles concrete and
‘graspable’—it grants corporal existence to the intangible.
This can only be conveyed completely through use of visual
(concrete, existing in time/space) clue-age. Remember that
verbal/written language is an abstraction of the world and
can only suggest being. What that means for the presentation
of allegory is that the written forms of the art must “put
more stuff in” to clue us in to the being-state of a
personified intangible. That means the subtle/symbolic must
be “explained/translated” more explicitly, requiring more
subjective characterization, less “universal convention”.
The change-over from visually presented allegory (created
mostly for a populace that could not read) to that of the
written allegorical work represents a significant step in
the evolution of storytelling. And maybe this is the point
where the definition of Allegory shifts. Maybe what I’ve
been referring to is really “Classical” Allegory, where
others have been speaking of “Progressive” Allegory.
It wouldn’t be the first time I was completely talking to
cross purposes. ;)
Frantically dragging this discussion back to BtVS before
Masq tells us to take our “book club” to an elsewhere…
Someone up above suggested Whistler as an allegorical
figure, which I think I’d agree with. (By the way, notice
how much talk there’s been of Whistler lately? Weird.) In
that he represents bodily the notion of “Calling”. He prods
Angel into action, makes him evaluate his place in the
world, and, most intriguingly, convinces Angel that he is a
creature of Destiny, but that he must choose to participate
in that destiny. His words to Buffy are also about duty,
about doing what she must in service to her destiny, but
also to her Self.
Okay, hope that cleared up or at least interestingly muddied
your question. But please, folks, if I’m all out of line and
you’ve got the info to set me on the straight and narrow,
please speak up. It is my life goal to try to cure myself of
ignorance, but I relapse sometimes. ;)
Begging your indulgence, but doing it for love…
Here’s a poem that speaks directly to our modern-day
skepticism of the value of Classical Allegory:
The Death of Allegory
I am wondering what became of all those tall
abstractions
that used to pose, robed and statuesque, in paintings
and parade about on the pages of the Renaissance
displaying their capital letters like license plates.
Truth cantering on a powerful horse,
Chastity, eyes downcast, fluttering with veils.
Each one was a marble come to life, a thought in a coat,
Courtesy bowing with one hand always extended,
Villainy sharpening an instrument behind a wall,
Reason with her crown and Constancy alert behind a helm.
They are all retired now, consigned to a Florida for
tropes.
Justice is there standing by an open refrigerator.
Valor lies in bed listening to the rain.
Even Death has nothing to do but mend his cloak and
hood,
and all their props are locked away in a warehouse,
hourglasses, globes, blindfolds and shackles.
Even if you called them back, there are no places left
for them to go, no Garden of Mirth or Bower of Bliss.
The Valley of Forgiveness is lined with condominiums
and chain saws are howling in the Forest of Despair.
Here on the table near the window is a vase of peonies
and next to it black binoculars and a money clip,
exactly the kind of thing we now prefer,
objects that sit quietly on a line in lower case,
themselves and nothing more, a wheelbarrow,
an empty mailbox, a razor blade resting in a glass
ashtray.
As for the others, the great ideas on horseback
and the long-haired virtues in embroidered gowns,
it looks as though they have traveled down
that road you see on the final pages of storybooks,
the one that winds up a green hillside and disappears
into an unseen valley where everyone must be fast
asleep.
---Billy Collins
From his book “Questions About Angels”, which I cannot
recommend heartily enough.
Thanks, guys, for the opportunity to ramble on and on and
on…
---Haecceity
[> [> [> [> Re: Allegory, Yes? Or…No? (Or
maybe “Hell, why not?”) -- Pilgrim, 04:41:54 11/19/02
Tue
What you say about the possibilities of allegory in a visual
versus a written medium .. . Spenser's Faerie Queene was an
allegory, but one that was deeply troubled by the dangers of
the written word. Published at a time when mass produced
books were new things, the poem contains all kinds of
references to the risks of writing, and what might happen if
the word gets into the wrong hands. Spenser couldn't control
the uses made of his work--the meaning he meant for it to
have was in danger of warping into other meanings.
Reminds me of Tolkein's famous putdown of allegory in his
forward to LOTR: "I cordially dislike allegory in all its
manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and
wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history,
true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the
thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse
'applicability' and 'allegory'; but the one resides in the
freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed
domination of the author." This is probably the sort of
allegory-bashing that any appreciator of allegory will hate.
And it's kind of funny to me that Tolkein is so completely
invested in his creation that he's convinced himself that
it's history. Maybe all creators of fictional worlds do
that.
Perhaps, as you say, it's just too difficult for the author
to control the written word, especially in long and involved
works, so that what might be allegory morphs into "history."
But Buffy is also a long and involved work, contradictory
even to itself, even though visual. And it feels to me like
"history," rather than a more straightforward depiction of
principles/ideas.
Allegory actually seems to me appropriate for our
contemporary age, with our materialist perspective. We tend
to believe that the material is all there is to existence.
We can create works of art in which the reader/audience will
accept a one-to-one correspondence between the thing (the
body, the person) and the idea that the person represents.
In another age, faith in a reality other than the body may
have clouded the message: In Christianity, for example, what
does the communion wafer represent? It's unclear--or rather,
it represesnts multiple ideas--the body of Christ (as human,
as divine, as a unity, as a trinity), the body of the Church
(in its earthly state, as perfected), the remission of sin.
In a contemporary age, perhaps "things" resonate less for us
with multiple imbued meanings, so the author/writer is
better able to control the meaning he puts into the things
he uses to create the story?
[> [> [> [> [> Except... --
Tchaikovsky, 05:04:29 11/19/02 Tue
As Philip Pullman has repeated so eloquently, that humans
love stories which are just stories. The Harpies in 'The
Amber Spyglass' are nasty, evil creatures, (much like the
classical Harpies), guarding the stretches of darkness which
all people go to when they die, to decay forever, (somewhat
like the Elven Halls of Mandos in Tolkien). But when Lyra
tells them the story of her adventures, they stop being
evil. They sit back and are drawn into the story. Eventually
Lyra and Will make a deal that the Harpies will guide the
dead through the caves if, in return, the people who come
down there tell them the stories of their life.
So we love stories. Straight out, straight forward
narrative. Soap opera. Action novel. When a work of
narrative becomes invested with forms of symbolism and
applicability, it is more multi-layered than being merely a
cracking good yarn. But, ultimately, do we really enjoy
stories which are strict allegory? Shadowkat cites 'Animal
Farm' above. Its title page reads: Animal Farm: A Fairy
Tale. This is partly to confuse the readers. Partly to get
it past the Russian authorities. But it's arguable that we
get more joy out of reading the beautifully written tragic
fairy tale of Animal Farm, (the pigs become
indistinguishable from the men), as we do from realising
that it's an allegory.
Maybe allegory is more appropriate in some senses. But it
may also deny some of our characters a humanity, as they are
pre-programmed to stand for something else. Even if it is
the events that stand for something, there is a degree of
pre-determination in their consequent reactions and
opinions. So humans who can grow in any direction are more
compelling to me. I wil always prefer straight narrative
over allegory. I can cope quite happily with the Buffyverses
allusions, parallels, metaphors. But I will never watch it
as an allegory, either of classical or progressive type.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except... --
Pilgrim, 06:39:30 11/19/02 Tue
Thanks for the reminder--I've really got to read some
Pullman!
Can a strict allegory also be a cracking good story? Trying
to think of one. Ah--What about Melville's twinned short
stories, Paradise of Bachelors/Tartarus of Maids? Hmmm. Or
Hawthorne's Young Goodman Brown? Okay, maybe these aren't
the most enthralling stories, but I find them fun to read,
and the Melville stories are really quite chilling--the
image that female laborers in a paper mill are reduced to
sexless, white, blanks who mate with the machinery they
operate to produce a product, yikes. And the stories work
mostly as allegories, where the author clearly is trying to
control/capture the meaning that the characters and plot
represent.
Actually, I'm not sure there really is such a thing as
strict allegory, since it seems almost inevitable that we
read into/add meaning from our own experiences. Even with
that epitome of allegoriness, Everyman.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except... --
MaeveRigan, 12:52:31 11/19/02 Tue
"As Philip Pullman has repeated so eloquently, that humans
love stories which are just stories."
Pullman's right about that, but it's kind of ironic from
him, since The Amber Spyglass and its 2 companion
volumes are part of an allegorical trilogy. Don't tell me
they're not. All those Blake and Milton allusions? Please!
Hard as he may have been trying to write "just [a] story,"
his allegorical agenda certainly went into overdrive in
volume 3.
Rant off. Back to Buffy now!
[> Going To Need Another Power Outage To Respond
*Properly* To You All ;) -- Haecceity, 23:38:22
11/18/02 Mon
So all you weather-workers get your twirl on and rustle up a
good bluster for the east coast—you know, nothing Hurricane
Andrew, just enough to get me out of work for a day or
so…
(to be spent profitably wading through esoteric texts
searching for answers, of course---I am sooo Giles)
…shouldn’t be too hard. I work about two blocks from the
beach, so maybe a minor little wavelet, aimed directly to my
workstation….….wading off into increasingly eeevil thoughts
regarding worksite wreckage…beginning to wonder what I
should call my own demon side. Haecceitas? (On the theory
that everything is evil in Latin translation.)...okay, back
now, but scratching my head ‘cause don’t remember what I was
going to say. Plus, horn nubbins? Itchyyyyyyy!
---Haecceity
All-Natural, No Preservatives Required Night Owl who is SO
looking forward to grad school in January so that I can stay
up all night reading/writing to the board!!! But who now has
to sign off, having only responded to one post in any sort
of meaningful way, ‘cause those fiends who designed the
workday did so without consulting the nocturnal!
[> [> Addendum Note to the Weather Witches --
Haecceity, 03:47:46 11/19/02 Tue
The afore-requested storm should abate by 8 p.m. Eastern
tonight, though.
There’s this show I want to watch…
[> Why I Love This Board and All About Land Sharks
(*minor*spoil/spec S4-7) -- Haecceity, who couldn’t
sleep ‘cause the moon is so bright!, 03:54:35 11/19/02
Tue
“There is set before us for general use a bowl of myths and
stories combined. And where could one meet with more kindly
listeners for testing these stories?” ---Plutarch
There I was, hesitating long minutes over hitting ‘approve’
for a post I felt sure was going to hit some buttons of its
own regarding the great Season 6 Love/Hate Debate (“Dark
Sides, Dark Nights”), and what happens?
You all glom onto my jazz-riffing, tossed off, obscure
literary method post.
Love that!
Currently tossing any remaining pre-conceived notions out
the window.
On Fever-Pitch, Restless Sharks and Why Joss et al Are Total
Story Gods:
“What is up with Season 7?” Is rebounding all over this
board these days, and everybody’s “Got a Theory”. Some
apocalyptic, or spin-offy (“Dawnie the Vampire” Slayer ;),
others displaying the strange beauty of twisting insane
troll logic. But I’ve got one that’s not about the story arc
or what will happen to who, etc. Mine is about the audience
and Mutant Enemy and it’s really, really simple—there’s
blood in the water.
We are odd creatures, we humans. We have all the animal
drives, but inexplicably we seem to have gotten an extra one
from the evolutionary “Wheel of Fortune”. We require
meaning. We need to consume it, we need to create it. We can
withstand the severe depletion/loss of other drives as long
as there is meaning to that. We can die from its lack.
Our richest sources of this meaning meat are myths and
stories. That’s what fills Plutarch’s bowl. It is the
invisible bowl on the table of society. We gather together
to share not only our meals, but our meanings, our stories,
ourselves.
Meaning is a hunger drive. We are like sharks in the ocean
of creation, swimming constantly, “Gotta keep moving
forward…Like a shark. On land.” snatching at meaning,
searching it out, and when we find it, we internalize it.
Through some mysterious metaphysical chemical reaction,
meanings become part of us. They are our beliefs and laws
and faiths, our notions, whimsies and operating systems, our
internal steerage.
And our drive for meaning is being kicked up higher and
higher toward full gear with every ME chumming of the water.
We’re tearing into each chunk of doled out story , thrashing
through its bits, but swimming on again, ultimately
unsatisfied, knowing that a real feeding is weeks and weeks
away.
The wonder of ME is that they know exactly how this works.
Because the tension isn’t just getting folks to watch the
show, it’s directly contributing to the meaning of the story
they are constructing. The “end of it all” is not just about
the possible end of Sunnydale, it’s about the end of all of
it. Our panicked and frenzied behavior has as much to do
with our worry over the end of this involvement we have with
the Buffyverse as it has to do with the supposed
“apocalyptic ending” of an epic tale. We are feeling the
same unease about unfolding events as the characters are. We
are caught in the exquisite tension of being offered full
access to the heart of this story’s meaning, but having to
wait for it.
---Haecceity
Who liked Season 6 very much, but thanks to FX finds herself
missing the chumminess of early Season 5 Scoobies.
“Chumminess” as in their fun, affectionate “family” aspect,
not their chopped-up fishy-food aspect.
And who also wonders if sharks have some sort of shark-word
for chumminess, like our “yumminess”. Or how about “Salty
Chum-ness”?
Maybe need more sleep after all. Having priorities straight,
will nap at work!
Current
board
| More November
2002