November 2004 posts


Previous November 2004  

More November 2004

OT: On election night, I saw the movie "Election" (a couple spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:32:20 11/03/04 Wed

I think OnM once talked about it in the Classic Movie of the Week column, but I'm not positively sure. However, I thought I'd talk about it anyway.

I've got to say, I was dissapointed considering how many people said how great it was. It's a problem I've noticed in some "comedies" before: they have a few jokes, maybe even some genuinely funny ones, but people really only seem to say good things about it because it touches on a weightier issue in a hyper-realistic style. While there were some funny bits in Election (both subtle (how Mr. MacAllister is unable to recognize his own hypocrisy) and non-subtle (the very extended ski accident)), it just didn't have enough to really make me laugh.

One thing I did like, though, was the character of Tammy. While she didn't have much to do with the main story, and I didn't understand why exactly she took the blame she did, she was a very funny character (she writes a love note saying "If you died, I'd throw myself into a cement mixer and be poured into your tomb" and can't understand why the girl she likes won't respond). I especially liked her speech about why she should be school council president: "Because I don't care". This really struck a cord with me, both because I highly respect the ability of an outsider to unite a school like that, and because I've long thought that maybe someone should run for U.S. President under the same campaign platform. After all, if we had a president with no political opinions whatsoever, simply a desire to be famous, be in a position of power, and make tons of money off of the whole thing, then we know that the will of the majority would be represented. Such a completely apathetic president would only do what most of the voters wanted him to do, and so we could be certain that at least 51% of the populaton would be satisfied with their leader. Sure, a voice in my head keeps telling me it will never happened, but I'd sure like to see someone give it a try.

Replies:

[> I think it's a brilliant film... -- Rob, 10:27:00 11/04/04 Thu

No time to make a long post, but where you may have misread the movie is in the fact that it isn't so much a laugh-out loud comedy as it is a satire. There is a subtle distinction between the two.

Rob
Lost 11/03 ep "The Moth" (Spoilers) -- Ames, 12:59:25 11/04/04 Thu

At least now we know that some of them realize there's no way they should have survived a crash where the tail section came off the plane in mid-air. I notice that so far no flashback has covered the actual crash scene - they cut away a few seconds after the tail ripped off and resume with the immediate aftermath of the crash, on the beach.

The analogy of the moth's metamorphisis and rebirth as a transformed being was laid on a bit thick, but continues the show's use of imagery to illustrate ideas. Was it only Charlie being reborn, or does it count as a rebirth of some kind for Jack too? He crawled out of the same cave.

Sayid's radio triangulation scheme was incoherent nonsense (wouldn't it be easier to make a simple directional antenna for the transceiver and get a bearing from two or more locations?). I guess the point was to set up the mystery of who whacked Sayid over the head. Sawyer has obviously been set up as a suspect - Kate accused him of not wanting to leave the island, and while we saw his signal rocket go up from the jungle on time, we didn't see him set it off the way we saw Shannon set hers off. But if someone else helped Sawyer with the rocket, who was it, and wouldn't they be found out?

Replies:

[> Re: Lost 11/03 ep "The Moth" (Spoilers) -- Wizard, 15:24:21 11/04/04 Thu

I thought that they set up Locke as the suspect, not Sawyer, because if he lit that flare then there is no way he could have gotten to Sayid that quickly.

As for the rebirth, I think that it was just Charlie. Jack just had a 'vision quest,' after all.
Sad news -- Masquerade, 18:30:45 11/04/04 Thu

This is an email I just received from Liam, who is the ATPo poster Marie's partner:

===


Hi - thi si not Marie - it's her partner Liam. I'm just writing to say a personal huge thank you to you and your friends. You don't know this, but our son died in August, aged 8 months, of a brain aneurism. I've been checking her mail occasionally, but have just started telling people she writes to.

The thank you is for your Series 6 stuff, which I happened acrss today (by mistake, eeally, as I was skimming through stuff on her computer. Anyway, I know Jack was eager to write some of this a while back, so I mentioned it toher and she actually showed a spark of interest, and I was able to get her to the computer to read a bit of it.

I know we''ll both take a long time to get through this, but I finally feel that we will, someday, start to live again. Of course we have Jack's son Davie, who's like my own to me. I don't know how we would have coped without him.

I just wanted to tell you, and I hope you pass this on, to whomever you think should know, that I thanked God for you all today.

Please tell the Board if you think it appropriate. I hope you didn't mind hearing from a stranger, though I don't feel like one.

Liam

Replies:

[> Marie, Liam: I wish I could offer more -- Scroll, 18:53:04 11/04/04 Thu

Sincere hugs and tears over your loss. I can't begin to imagine how you feel. Please know that we're hear to listen and offer whatever words of comfort we can. If it's okay with you, I'd like to include you in my prayers. I hope that you both find healing with your family and friends.

{{HUGS}}

~ Scroll

[> Re: Sad news -- O'Cailleagh, 19:17:42 11/04/04 Thu

I never know what to say at times like these.
I just want you to know that my thoughts are with you, and that I hope you both have the love and support that you need from those around you.
For what its worth, you have it from us.

O'Cailleagh

[> Re: Sad news -- aliera, 19:26:07 11/04/04 Thu

Marie, we don't know each other, but if comfort were mine to give you would have that and more.

[> Re: Sad news -- Jane, 19:32:17 11/04/04 Thu

Marie, Liam, words are so inadequate. My deepest sympathies to you both. Your friends here are thinking of you.

[> Re: Sad news -- Ann, 19:43:40 11/04/04 Thu

I am truly very sorry for your loss of your son. Please take care.

[> Dittoing all of the above -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:45:48 11/04/04 Thu


[> Re: Sad news -- Pony, 19:55:50 11/04/04 Thu

There are no words. I am so very sorry.

[> Our deepest condolences -- Sara, 20:16:36 11/04/04 Thu

Marie and Liam -
I am so sorry for your tragedy. All I can do is wish you strength as you grieve, and peace in the future. I will be joining the many here that will be thinking of you.

- Sara

[> Re: Sad news -- LittleBit, 20:19:48 11/04/04 Thu

There really aren't ever words for this. My thoughts and support are with you.

[> So sorry to hear this. -- Cactus Watcher, 20:28:08 11/04/04 Thu

Marie, Liam, we care.

[> Deepest condolences. -- cjl, 20:34:27 11/04/04 Thu

There are no words to express our sadness.

[> Re: Sad news -- deeva, 20:40:14 11/04/04 Thu

My sincerest condolences on the loss your little one. I can't begin to think of what your days, hours, minutes are like since your youngest son's passing. You'll be in my thoughts. Be well.

[> Re: Sad news -- LadyStarlight, 21:02:13 11/04/04 Thu

My thoughts are with you both. My deepest sympathies.

[> [> Re: Sad news -- Angel's Watcher, 21:29:40 11/04/04 Thu

Even though I don't know you, I still pass on my condolences and am sad for you. Thoughts and prayers going out.

[> Re: Sad news -- anom, 21:33:57 11/04/04 Thu

So sorry to hear this. But I'm glad you have each other, & Davie, & I hope you find what comfort & strength you can. Thanks for letting us know, Liam.

[> Re: Sad news -- Rahael, 01:17:55 11/05/04 Fri

It's hard to know what to say. I'm sure I haven't been the only one writing and deleting, trying to find the right words - but of course, there are no right words are there. That's a mockery. Words are like tissue paper against something like this. More than inadequate.

My heart goes out to both of you. I am thinking of what it would be possible to do, that would be more than words.

[> Re: Sad news -- KdS, 01:57:06 11/05/04 Fri

This is appalling. All my deepest sympathies.

[> Re: Sad news -- Tchaikovsky, 02:41:08 11/05/04 Fri

I'm so sorry. Just another set of letters arranged uselessly, but you're in my thoughts. All our thoughts.

TCH

[> Re: Sad news -- frisby, 03:52:16 11/05/04 Fri

"All that ever was, will forever be."
Nietzsche

My condolences.

[> Re: Sad news -- Rebekahroxanna, 04:44:16 11/05/04 Fri

I am terribly sorry. It is a tragic loss. As others have said, there are no words, only the deep groanings of our hearts.

[> Re: Sad news -- Ronia, 05:22:21 11/05/04 Fri

Lighting a candle, singing a lament.

My deepest condolences.

[> Re: Sad news -- Cheryl, 06:52:42 11/05/04 Fri

My deepest condolences. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

[> Re: Sad news -- MaeveRigan, 07:41:28 11/05/04 Fri

Can't add any more than others have said, but also hold you both in my thoughts and prayers.

[> Re: Sad news -- tyreseus, 08:11:27 11/05/04 Fri

Oh Marie, Liam,

I hope you find strength and love from your whole family (extended or otehrwise) during this difficult time. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

[> Re: Sad news -- Vickie, 09:36:07 11/05/04 Fri

I'm so very very sorry for your loss. You are in my prayers.

[> Re: Sad news -- Arethusa, 11:12:14 11/05/04 Fri

I am so very sorry. My thoughts are with you.

[> [> Re: Sad news -- David, 11:20:37 11/05/04 Fri

I don't know you but i'm really sorry for your loss. I know words aren't enough but i wish you strength

[> Re: Sad news -- Caroline, 17:51:05 11/05/04 Fri

My condolences to you and your family. Keeping you in my thoughts,

Caroline

[> Re: Sad news -- Sheri, 18:42:22 11/05/04 Fri

Marie, Liam,

I'm so sorry to hear what's happened. I really wish that I knew the right thing to say or do, but I don't. All I can think to do is to send you my love. You'll both be in my thoughts.

Love, Sheri

[> My deepest condolences... -- shadowkat, 19:44:19 11/05/04 Fri


[> Re: Sad news -- dub, 21:37:27 11/05/04 Fri

Thank you for letting us know this, Liam. I'm so saddened by the random unfairness of your loss, and I wish it might have been different.

Please give Jacky my love...I've missed her.

Elizabeth

[> Re: Sad news -- DorianQ, 01:08:17 11/06/04 Sat

I offer my condolences and the only thing I can say is that you are not alone; no one is, even if you think you are. My thoughts dwell with you.

[> I'm so sorry to hear this. My condolensces. -- Rob, 10:05:14 11/06/04 Sat


[> I have lit a candle in honor of Donovan... -- SS, 15:22:35 11/06/04 Sat

Liam and Marie,

I am so sorry for your loss.

I have lit a candle in memory of your son.

About three years ago, my best friend lost her nephew at 6 1/2 months due to an enzyme disorder. She told me that the most important thing was that people remembered that he had existed.

Although I do not know your family, I remember when Masq told the board about his birth in January, and how happy he made you. In praying for you, that is what I will remember about him.

My prayers go out to the both of you, and to Donovan Morgan's uncle too...

My condolences.

SS

[> [> A lighted candle is a wonderful idea-- I'm going to do the same! -- OnM, 15:55:45 11/06/04 Sat

My deepest condolences to you both-- you will be in my thoughts, and I'm going to light a candle also, tonight.

Peace be with you.

[> [> Worldwide Annual Candle Lighting Day for child loss December 12th -- Ann, 16:08:54 11/06/04 Sat

This is something I have taken part in and is a wonderful tribute to the children who have died and their families. I think it would be a wonderful gesture to do this on that day for Donovan.

[> [> [> Here is the link -- Ann, 16:13:32 11/06/04 Sat

http://www.compassionatefriends.org/2004_WWCL/2004wcl_events.htm

[> [> [> [> Re: Here is the link -- Jane, 20:21:25 11/06/04 Sat

What a wonderful idea. Compassionate Friends is a support group organized by two parents who lost one of their children, and it is now an international organization. My older sister credits Compassionate Friends with saving her sanity, and even her life, after my nephew Sean died at 19, in a traffic accident 15 years ago.
I will join in with you and light a candle for all the lost children, and especially for Marie and Liam.

[> Re: Sad news -- monsieurxander, 16:52:14 11/06/04 Sat

I am so sorry. You're in my prayers.

[> My condolences to the parents -- Wizard, 17:05:04 11/06/04 Sat


[> Re: Sad news -- nibblet, 19:10:03 11/07/04 Sun

It's been said more eloquently in this thread by people other than myself, but you are in my thoughts and prayers if that's ok. We've never met, and I can't begin to imagine what you're going through, but I offer my condolences from the other side of the world.

Lots of love

Laura
I wear the costumes and I have the pile of post Oct clothes to prove it (Spoilers, Smallville, Jinx) -- fresne, 22:11:55 11/04/04 Thu

Will it shock anyone if I say that this week s Smallville was about costuming and identity?

I ll assume that s a no.

Ah, Clark is finally becoming the man that he will be. Well, he s been becoming all along, but this episode represented a big step along the way.

The moment when he stands up to his father as an adult and tells him that Jonathan can t possibly know what it is to be Clark. Every handshake, every hug is a test of Clark s control. And I m even more firmly convinced that playing football is the final test of Clark s ability to interact. Since the alternative to interaction is to completely withdraw, Clark is learning to function as a normal person.

This contrasts with the sub-plot where characters discuss whether Clark may be on steroids. The concern that if he is not playing on a level playing field, that all their successes, as symbolized by the championship, will be for naught. Clark isn t on a level playing field with the other players. I mean, he has powers far beyond those of mortal men.

But the skill that he is learning is to play well, but not too well. Choosing to fall when he is hit. Judging that fine balance of extraordinary strength (as some farm boys who spend the summer picking up bags of seed and bales of hay are wont to have) and super (as locomotives are more wont to have).

Which isn t to say that I think Clark s becoming a particularly healthy adult.

The moment when Clark stands in the barn clutching a shard of his dead world, attempting to throw the football. Inducing pain for the normallacy of it. Clutching an anti-steroid to be less.

When he talks about how when he puts on the uniform, puts on the costume, its like his identity falls away. It was like a real step towards schism. The superman who is extraordinary and stands before the adulation of crowds. The man who fumbles from contact. Both selves fighting the good fight in their own venue. But divided.

The theme of knowing someone was also interesting.

Control. Words. Names flipped to be hidden. The internet holding forth on, did you mean the reverse? searches.

Lex Luthor not betting against a team but on Clark Kent, based on his knowledge of the man. He says, What is lost can be regained. and I wonder what the heck Lex meant by that. So much has already been lost in the show, friendship, innocence, love, memory, etc.

Lana Lang not know if Clark is capable of taking steroids. Her belief that Clark would/could lash out at her by getting her boyfriend fired. Well, he has been fairly Red Krypontite/body switching/moody teenager spastic. I can see where she would genuinely feel that she doesn t know him.

But, it contrasted interestingly with Chloe s first forgiving Clark and ending her part in the episode with cryptic remarks that flirt, imply, some final knowing on her part. Far from the man without secrets, that Clark is the Other that she like Lex enshrines on a wall.

Ah, Lex. So, too must Lex step down his darker parallel path. The villain to Clark s hero as he himself ironically says. Clark s plaid shirt buttoned ridiculously high and in response to Clark s accusations, Lex enigmatic smiles.

I really felt Lex step into his role as Sagit, holding the moral Numan in check. As Numan checks Sagit. And the world spins on the head of a pin.

Ah, the arc of it. Covenant and Green Days. Clark walks alone, with only his shadow.

Replies:

[> The Light of a red son (Spoilers, Superman: Red Son, graphic novel) -- fresne, 09:39:39 11/09/04 Tue

Superman: Red Son. Now then since I know at least two people on the board have read Red Son, I may as well blather, in a philoso sort of way.

The what if scenario.

What if I walked out the sliding door onto the platform. What if I stayed in the train. The trousers of time go two ways. Well, until I do the black widow costume, then the dress of time will go six ways hanging off a bustle and two ways off a dress (although, hmm arms). But I digress.

What if the Superman story went a bit different. What if in the 1930s, Superman s space ship had landed in Siberia instead of Kansas. What if instead of fighting for Truth, Justice and the American way, he fought for Stalin, Socialism, and the Common Worker.

Of late, the board (and places outside this RGB realm) have discussed the color significance of Red and Blue. States within these United.

I turn then to examine a different kind of Red Son. Red sun. Last son of a dead world. Last son. Last sun. The past. The map of history a scattered palimpsest of written lines and scrapped images. The future - that undiscovered country. The afterlife so too undiscovered until necronaughts push forth to set foot on its shores and then wheel back to return to the world of the living. As Magellan might say, It s not about sailing forth. It s about getting there and back again. Then again, he may still be humming the Animaniac s Magellan song. But I digress.

A number of years ago, I saw a documentary on Joseph Stalin outsider to Russ, that other kind of Georgian, who renamed himself a man of Steel. One of the more interesting aspects of the movie was the cult of personality that this leader of a Red state built around himself. One woman in an interview said something like, I hated him and yet I believed that if he wanted to operate on a man s heart, he could. Stalin fostered this concept within the Soviet Union of himself as a sort of superman. A leader who could be the master of any task.

While individuals who met him and actually were masters within their field (as when Stalin attempted to give the composer Dmitri Shostakovich advise on how to compose symphonies) might not be fooled, when the state controls the vertical and the horizontal perception bends.

Perception. Light. Red light from a dying sun. Yellow light for a young dynamic world.

Go back and bring a little light to our lives again.

Kal-El. El. L. Lara. Lana. Lois. Lex. Luthor. L. Last son.

How then perception when Stalin dies and is succeeded by a red Son rising, an actual superman with powers beyond those of mortal men. Able to change the course of mighty rivers with his bare hands to create the North Sea Worker s canal. Able to fuel whole economies with more power than a mere locomotive. A being that actually can read medical text books to ascertain that Stalin has been poisoned.

A being with the powers of a god seeking to bring about some social leavening. A being that so desperately wants to be liked. He doesn t want to take over. He just wants to help. And yet there is Lana standing in a food line. Hungry. And it s so much easier to just take care of it.

An alien. A last son. Red son.

Each inevitable step. Creating a world where people don t wear their seatbelts, because, why bother. Why not put the whole world in a bottle.

It s a party and everyone is invited.

Kal-el, where Jonathan Kent died before he had to see any of this. A red cape seen under every bed.

Lex Luthor, who couldn t care less about people, playing some long elaborate chess. Holding Kal-el in check. Checked by Kal-el. Check. Checkmate.

Lois Luthor, Lois Lane is just her pen name these days. Pondering the two poles of her world.

Hal Jordan - Green Lantern a former prisoner of war. Spending his imprisonment learning to make prisons in the mind. An interesting twist on the looming specter of Green light.

Wonder Woman leaving her island to fight for socialism and women s rights. Until that Trinitarian moment, where Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman face each other in the red light. Resolving into death and bitter.

Alas, poor Batmankoff. Glaring at his parents killer from a pool of blood and political dissident papers. Lighting the night sky with his defiant darkness.

The sun rises and the sun sets. The serpent has its own tail in its mouth and the tale begins again.

The alien ship crashes and the alien is us. Longing for new worlds to conquer. Longing for the light that makes youth and warmth and strength.

Light. Color. Red light. Yellow light. White light.

And a bit then from this week s Joan of Arcadia,


(G) Perception depends on how you see, not just what you see. You know white light contains all the colors of the rainbow, but you d never know it unless you change the way you look at it.

(J) They were hugging that s all I saw. It just hurt so much

(G) And it stopped you from seeing all the colors, so there was no light

(J) It was just, so much coming at me, you know.

(G) I know, just make sure you take it all in. Let yourself be dazzled Joan.


[> [> The Man of Tomorrow -- Rahael, 15:49:45 11/09/04 Tue

Excellent posts. Obviously I haven't seen Jinx yet.

I'm still kind of in awe at how good Red Son was. Stalin as father. Stalin as Superman. It strikes me - we know what the name of the American Superman is. Clark Kent. The private individual. But we never learn the name of the Russian superman. It's totally noticeable because whenever I read Russian novels as a young girl, I'd notice names. Full names, second names, petnames. You'd weave your way through, keeping track of the permutations.

But the Russian Superman is always a symbol, a metaphor, the Socialist Realism Art Made Flesh. You never found out what names his adoptive Russian parents gave him. Superman is ready to be adopted by Stalin. He's shadowed throughout by Stalin's illegitimate son Pyotr Roslov (whose second name doesn't really tell us about his real father anyhow). Pyotr, the man who gets blood on his hands for his father. Superman, who can persist in his terrible benevolence.

And of course the supreme resonance of "the man of steel" which is Stalin's self chosen name. In Superman he finds his metaphor. The more I think about Red Son the more its fearful symmetry reveals itself. Underneath the alienness, underneath the cape, underneath our metaphorical heroes, underneath our self proclaimed saviours, and their steel and determination and indomnitableness -

Cruelty has a human heart,
And Jealousy a human face;
Terror the human form divine,
And Secrecy the human dress.

The human dress is forged iron,
The human form a fiery forge,
The human face a furnace sealed,
The human heart its hungry gorge.

And even in the secular trappings there is another resonance. The Son of Man. Red Son, the divine, alien image. Sent down to save mankind. The Messiah complex. And yet it turns out that this Son really is the man of tomorrow.

Little Lamb, who made thee?

[> [> [> Re: The Man of Yesteryear (spoilers Superman: Red Son) -- fresne, 10:50:12 11/11/04 Thu

All that s required at this point is for Rob to go post that this is the best Superman comic ever.

Eyes skies speculatively.


Red Son is that rare creature where a rich story background and historical opportunity is used to excellent effect by a writing team. I mean, they shrunk St. Petersburg err Stalingrad err...Kandor (a bottled Kryptonian city. i.e., Superman could go home again, but he d have to be an inch tall. Hijinks ensue. And come to think of it, a current Superman comic plot line. Actually, more on that in a bit.). That s the thing about a 70ish year old comic, it has a lot of history. And for that matter history has a lot of history.

President Superman, Kal-el is a rather short list of names for a Russian leader. Who were that unmasked man and woman who saw the ship crash? What were their names? What was the name of that little boy who was normal until he was 14? The boy who loved the little red head next door, somehow I don t think his name was Charlie Brownakoff.

Then there s that very interesting comment that Pyotr (Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows) makes at the banquet. He says, that Superman must keep Lana sweet on campaign, because she knows who he was. Superman is completely known and yet unknown. And in the end, the glasses blue suit wearing man is just as enigmatic. An on-looker in the stream of history. Not even knowing his parents.

All the families in the story.

Seemingly childless Lex and Lois and yet, well, they get descendents from somewhere. Lara with her two children. Diana and her five thousand year old mother. The references to Hera. Stalin and his unacknowledged son. All Stalin s other unacknowledged children that did not made it this far. The boy with his parents glaring his hatred in the dark. Batman s clone/children of sorts the Batmen.

Contrast the Super hero with the wounded boy in the dark. Batman also has no name. He dwells in a cave filled with American memorabilia and he is only a boy. Only a mortal man with a thick skull and a bomb for a heart. A man who lends his title to an entire organization that survives purges and re-grows like a weed.

This is where discussion is a good thing, because I had always wondered at Stalin s characterization. For a man that suspicious, he seems so accepting of Kal-el. But as a lasting memorial to his own greatness, a million year rule by a man of steel, ah yes. Of course, to be the father in ever present statuary for on and on, of course.

Although, I think it s interesting that the son who kills Stalin is the one that mourns him, while it is the adopted son that comes within a hair s breath of Stalin s dream.

And I consider the city in a bottle. Really, that s an interesting metaphor, since for comic book continuity/background reasons that I m not going to go into, there is a Kryptonian city in a bottle. What I find interesting is that in a recent comic book story line (Godfall), we revisted the bottle city, where time flowed fast for small lives and the reality of Superman has flowed into a religion. The subject of that particular story line was that Superman had ceased to pay attention to the bottle city. What could possibly happen there, tiny place with tiny lives.

And so too I consider the bug rampaging through Stalingrad s streets. The citizen s reproaching their president for not preventing this catastrophe. The man who more and more finds human conversation dull and withdraws to a winter palace of solitude, promises to check the city once an hour to ensure safety.

As Lois sister (whose name I forget, ah, well, it s not like they give it) angrily tells Lois, how can Lois question Lex, when he has brought safety and prosperity back to America. Of what possible importance can the Daily Planet or little statues be in contrast to that?

St. Petersburg. Stalingrad. Lexopolis.

As I look at the image of Mount Rushmore, I m reminded of a city that Alexander the Great wanted to build. His own carved image on a mountain, with a city in the palm of his carved hand.

Great. Super. Yesterday. Tomorrow.


Which would tie into the reincarnation themes of this week s Smallville, but that will wait for thoughts to settle.

[> [> [> [> Ahem. *clears throat* This was the best Superman comic ever. (Red Son spoilers) -- Rob (coming down from the skies) ;-), 14:52:04 11/11/04 Thu

The history, and the twistifying, loopifying nature of history. The wonderful, complex depiction of the Superman/Diana marriage. The revelation of Superman's origins, and the inextricable link between Kal-El and Lex Luthor. How all of the characters used in alternate manners from the norm aren't just done as gimmicks but how rather character depth is gained from the contrast between who these people are "supposed" to be and who they are here. The glorious moral ambiguity: Superman as unwitting/unwilling villain and Lex as humanity's liberator? Which gains resonance from Smallville as well: "You were sent here to conquer, Kal-El." And here as in the normal mode of things, Lana is interesting as a symbol, but is wisely not overused as in Smallville, which tries to make her more complex but can't help failing.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> I plan to review this comic in three years time, once everyone has forgotten it -- TCH ;-), 05:53:40 11/12/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. But -- Rahael, 08:23:17 11/12/04 Fri

It can be in the post to you tomorrow, just say the word!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That would be great -- Tchaikovsky, 10:47:25 11/12/04 Fri

I think I've sent you my new university address before, but if not I can re-e-mail.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> Best Superman comic ever???? -- Tom, 00:07:22 11/14/04 Sun

That seems like high praise for Red Sun. Its a very solid read, but I think you guys are forgeting about some classics.

Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow by Alan Moore.
For The Man Who Has Everthing by Alan Moore.
Superman For All Seasons by Jeph Loeb.

All three are better than Red Sun.

Tom

P.S.: Making this list reminded me of why I don't read Superman comics that often. There are very few really good stories. Batman, Spider-man, Daredevil and independents like Powers and Astro City tend to be much more interesting and challenging.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, since my brain blew up, it has been the end of Zombie Shakespeare -- fresne, 08:57:34 11/14/04 Sun

Well, the beauty of the statement is that Red Son is an inversion of the story. It is not actually a Superman story.

It s like writing, if I could type it with a straight face, the Superman Tarzan crossover is the best Superman comic ever. Little baby Kal-el being raised by apes. John Greystoke growing up aimless in England. The tension between 70 and 80 years of mythology creating a delicious sense of contrast.

There, the concept is a gimmick (with albeit some nice steam punk art). In Red Son, it is the inversion of all we know. History. Myth.

Take the conversation between Superman and Pyotr in the field. Superman telling Pyotr that his first power was super hearing. He thought he was hearing voices. Joan of Arc in her field finds a sword and her explanation is divine. But the saints are only children in the next collective. The Red Son Setting poster that He s watching You. Delirium dances like it s 1984 and Dream spins Despair to hope. Contrasting Superman s unnamed parents who wanted him to be ready on the farm with Batman s unnamed parents gunned down in the gutter. Both iconic nameless.

So, yes there is a certain amount of hyperbole.

Although, my brain did blow up the first time I read Red Son. The end is just such a brilliant stroke. The end is the beginning.

I d not argue about either of the Moore books as excellent (sorry I don t care for the art style in Man For All Seasons. It s such a hard part of comic reading and so objective. I quite like the plotline over on Batman/Superman). I can easily tout Peace on Earth (mmmm pretty) and Kingdom Come (I mean really dude, freaking Green Lantern, anger that can bend steel, glasses. Good stuff.). Also, I just picked up Superman: Birthright, very interesting. I like the whole tribal/immigrant emphasis. And in yet another inversiony sort of way, I quite liked It s a bird. Interesting mediation on the icon.

Anyway, meander, meander, I ll think of something interesting to say about Red Son after my hike/wine tasting (uh not at the same time).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tell me... -- Rob, 22:48:46 11/14/04 Sun

...how you end up liking Birthright. I saw the trade at the comic book store today, and almost picked it up, but I left with what I came for: the new "Fables" collection and Astonishing X-Men #6.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, X-Men...Fables... -- fresne, 09:10:32 11/15/04 Mon

Also, a valid choice. I was at the book store when I saw that Birthright was out. I really must learn not to buy comics that I know are going to come out in graphic novel format, which I much prefer.

With the caveat that Birthright is not what I d call subtle, I quite enjoyed it.

Appealing artwork. Engaging, yet flawed, characters. Yet another incarnation of Lex Luthor as billionaire scientist.

The writers made some interesting choices regarding wait for it the significance of Superman s costume as tribal clothing and the Clark persona s adoption of protective camouflage. The desire to be true to your heritage and yet show your love for your new home/family. The classic immigrant s dilemma.

Some nice symbolism regarding sight, seeing, communication.

How does Superman see the world? What colors does he see? What is the affect of light? Color? Sound? The significance of being a listener? Of being a speaker? How we attempt to communicate. Who we communicate with? Why? What does the media perceive? What do we perceive through the media?

Again, the subtext is pretty much text and there are some moments of, And now Clark is told an important lesson/plot point. But seriously, any series that has Clark Kent sitting in the Kent s kitchen wearing an I believe green alien head t-shirt, well, that s just funny.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Nope, disagree. Red Son beats those, particularly Superman For All Seasons, which is overrated IMO. -- Rob, 08:57:55 11/14/04 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> Best Superman comic ever--my own nominees -- cjl, 14:11:37 11/15/04 Mon

For the Man Who Has Everything - Alan Moore (w), Dave Gibbons (a). Second best Alan Moore Superman story ever. Digs deep into Superman's pain over the loss of his homeworld in a highly original fashion. Excellent characterizations of Batman, Robin (II), and Wonder Woman (rowr). (Yeah, why HAVEN'T Supes and WW gotten together?) Just...neat.

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? - Alan Moore (w), Curt Swan (a). The best Alan Moore Superman story ever. In this imaginary tale, Moore is let loose on the Superman legend--wrapping up all the loose plotlines and all the main characters. Heart rending conversation between Supes and Perry White about the two loves of his life, Lois and Lana. Heart rending death of a Superman's best friend (Krypto! Noooooo!). Beautiful ending, and a spot-on set-up for a sequel that will probably never come.

Must There Be a Superman? - Elliot S! Maggin (w.), Curt Swan (a). Fascinating post-60s revisionism by Maggin, who dares to bring up the possibility that Superman's constant interference in humanity's affairs may be stunting our species' growth. Maybe a touch too didactic for some (the Guardians? Yak yak yak), but the idea alone is worth your time.

Kingdom Come - Mark Waid, Alex Ross (w), Alex Ross (a). A sort of first cousin to Alan Moore's Watchmen, Kingdom Come is another collision point between the world we know and the world of superheroes. Gorgeously rendered by Ross and Waid's ear for all the characters in the DC Universe--even in this alternate world--is superb. The Batman/Wonder Woman/Superman postscript is funny as hell, and a great capper to the majesterial goings-on in the rest of the book.

Superman's Return to Krypton/The Mermaid from Atlantis - Jerry Seigel (w), Wayne Boring (a). Two Superman classic love stories, old school style. In the first, a cosmic accident sends Superman back to the old homeworld mere months before it explodes, and he falls in love with Lana Turner-ish movie siren Lyle Lerrol. Delirious Douglas Sirk-style melodrama, and those Wayne Boring Kryptonian landscapes? Heaven. In the second, Metropolis University journalism student Clark Kent falls in love with a mysterious young woman who may or may not be a spy for a foreign government. Turns out, she is exactly that--but the city-state turns out to be Atlantis. Mermaid Lori Lemaris was one of the great female creations from Jerry Seigel's pen.

Worst Supe story EVER: the rushed Superman/Lois Lane marriage issue (forced on DC Comics by the Lois & Clark TV show).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooops. That should be "Lyla" Lerrol! I slashed Supes without even knowing it! -- cjl, 14:12:49 11/15/04 Mon

thankyouthankyou -- Aurora85, 14:08:14 11/05/04 Fri

I have read a couple people's attempts at writing a virtual Angel Season 6, and yours is the best by far. I like the script format, characterization is spot-on, and the Wonderland scenes were just brilliant. I anxiously await your next installment!

Replies:

[> Glad you enjoyed it! -- Masq, 16:05:43 11/05/04 Fri

6.2 in the works as we speak. ; )
Thank you, all of you... -- Marie, 13:52:46 11/08/04 Mon

I started reading the messages below, and then found I couldn't get much further than one or two, but I know that some time in the future I'll visit the archives and read them all.

I'm overwhelmed by the true kindness that exists in this world amidst all the tragic events that are happening all over the world - I know that even as I type this message and wipe away my own tears, other mothers and fathers are weeping for their children in other, far off lands. And their children have been taken from them not by illness, but by men.

Anyway, thanks again. I will be replying to those kind folk who have sent me e-mails, but probably not for a while.

Marie (and Liam)

Replies:

[> Bless you, Marie -- Masq, 19:30:02 11/12/04 Fri

And do come by here when you can, 'cause you're family.
Best Advice Received By Buffy -- Lisa, 12:57:47 11/09/04 Tue

While watching the original "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" movie, while dying, Buffy's first Watcher gave her what turned out to be the best piece of advice she had ever received. He told her to do everything wrong and not follow the vampire slaying rulebook. It's strange that he had openly encouraged Buffy to follow her own rules, whereas Giles simply gave up on having Buffy follow the Watcher Council's rules.

Replies:

[> Re: Best Advice Received By Buffy -- Wizard, 14:35:54 11/09/04 Tue

For all we know, Merrick and Giles came to the same conclusion, but it takes Giles longer. At first, he gives up on making her follow the rules, and then he clues in.

[> Re: Best Advice Received By Buffy -- Riz, 17:13:24 11/09/04 Tue

IMO, it's:

"The wheel never stops turning, Buffy. You're up, you're down. But that doesn't change what you are. And you are a hell of a woman."
Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- David Frisby, 10:48:47 11/09/04 Tue

Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 6:42 AM
Subject: Effective Immediately..

Letter From Parliament, To All US Citizens: In the light of your failure to elect a human as President of the USA, and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be Circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Donkey Piss", with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Donkey Piss". This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From December 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns or lawyers. The fact that you need so many lawyers shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. You will immediately tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776). Thank you for your co-operation.

Replies:

[> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- Corwin of Amber, 11:46:51 11/09/04 Tue

This would be funny if I didn't half think you meant it.

[> [> It is funny -- & no I don't mean it. -- frisby, 12:18:04 11/09/04 Tue

I posted it only for a good laugh. There's no going back.

[> oh, so tony blair secretly wanted bush to lose? -- anom, 12:04:13 11/09/04 Tue

Coulda fooled me. But this is pretty funny in places. Of course, the 1st question is, literally, "You & what army?"

I should stop there, I really should. But between my vehement objection to stating that any person is not a human (yes, even in humor; yes, even that one) & the fact that the only thing keeping my editing work from eventually being outsourced to some former British colony may be the spelling, & some other, differences between American & British English (thank you, Noah Webster! yes, I did spell "humor" w/only 1 "u"), well, I already got started, & it's too late now.

"The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of '-ize'."

Microsoft won't get that right either.

"If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become 'shires' e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire."

Heh--so then I'd live in New Yorkshire? Can we have our own version of the pudding?

"You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game."

"The girls"? Apparently whoever wrote this is unaware that the U.S. women's soccer team won the World Cup 6 years in a row. On the other hand, this is evidence that "you" means only American males, & women, not being addressed by the proclamation, can freely ignore it.

Oh, & we are not giving up baseball!

"You will start driving on the left with immediate effect."

I think "impact" would be a more appropriate word choice.

"You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns or lawyers."

Y'know...this alone might make it worth it!

Finally, gotta say I appreciate that somebody actually made sure the percentages add up. That's rare in a piece like this. Maybe it really was written by a Brit!

[> [> Yes, I'm fairly sure a brit wrote it. -- frisby, 12:24:57 11/09/04 Tue

I'm fairly sure a brit wrote it. I got it from my mother in law, who is English. My son and I cracked up here and there. Funny thing though is sometimes I think we Americans simply reversed various habits of the brits so as to be different, to be american. There are times when the English are right and the Americans wrong. But not with regard to Tony Blair -- who does not have very much support from the people there these days.

Anyway, I do think there was fraud in the election, and that there are some christians who pose a danger to this country in a way similar to the way some fundamentalist moslems are a danger to the moslem world. Others claim this too of course. And of course there are others who hear this and think it not only incorrect but even insane (Scarborough for example).

[> [> But Hillary wanted Bush to win -- Cleanthes, 14:23:08 11/09/04 Tue

For obvious reasons.

[> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- Ames, 12:10:14 11/09/04 Tue

It seems to me that Tony Blair was fully on board the good ship "Iraqi Freedom", so people who live in glass houses...

[> [> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- Bjerkley, 12:16:21 11/09/04 Tue

It's genuinely thought in the UK (and claimed by sources close to the PM) that Blair secretly wanted Bush to win. Would be very tricky for him politically if Bush wasn't re-elected, partly for the reasons you state.

As to the main post, I think it's now just about reached all the work inboxes of the UK! Very funny - nothing we Brits like better than to feel superior to others, specially if they're American or French :-)

[> [> [> Related Joke -- frisby, 12:31:48 11/09/04 Tue

Another option is expressed by a cartoon I cut out of the newspaper: it shows north america (above mexico) divided into the United States of Canada (which includes Canada and the blue states) and Jesusland (the red states). What's really funny is that 90% of the red states are welfare states, receiving more money from the us govt than they send, and that the blue states benefit much much more from the bush tax cuts than the red states. The red states are cutting their own fiscal throats. Ain't life ironic?

[> [> [> Re: The French - another joke - non -PC -- Rich, 13:44:12 11/09/04 Tue

from the comedy channel:

the speaker is an American women visiting the West Coast, where she is invited to a Cinco de Mayo party.

Woman: What's Cinco de Mayo ?

friend : It's like the Mexican fourth July - the day we won our indepependence.

Woman: Cool - who'd you beat ?

friend: The French.

Woman: So - who didn't ?

[> [> [> [> Re: Ok - I'm a little ashamed of myself for that one -- Rich, 13:47:08 11/09/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok - I'm a little ashamed of myself for that one -- Ames, 19:06:27 11/09/04 Tue

That's ok, we can't help ourselves sometimes.

I once stood in the street in Brussels on the national day of Belgium and watched a military parade of tanks and troops rumble by while the Belgians around me cheered, and I couldn't help but think "isn't the main military achievement of Belgium to lay down and let the enemy roll over them in the first hour of every recent European war?".

-----------------------
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (George Santayana, 1905)

[> [> Blair does not represent the full voice of the brits! -- frisby, 12:28:24 11/09/04 Tue

My wife's uncle for one -- he does not and has not supported Blair's positions for years -- and he's not alone. That's like saying that all americans believe Jesus is the only way to salvation simply because Bush believes it (or do you think bush disagrees with billy graham and jerry fallwell and pat robertson on this theological point?).

[> I first read this after the 2000 election -- Vickie, 13:29:50 11/09/04 Tue

It was during that "what the heck?" period when they were recounting, and then they weren't, and then they were going to the Supremes--except they weren't, they were recounting. And then they went to the Supremes.

And now I'm having a flashback.

it's not pretty.

I'm pleased to note one factual error: American baseball is played extensively in Latin America and in Japan. At least. So there. (not that those countries compete in the run up to the World Series.)

[> [> Re: baseball in Latin America -- Rich, 13:49:23 11/09/04 Tue

Actually, lots of Latin Americans play in the World Series - they just play for American teams

[> [> [> Re: baseball in Australia -- Caroline, 20:47:48 11/09/04 Tue

I'd like to add Australia to the list of countries that plays baseball and sends people off to play in America.

[> Nah. -- CW, 17:26:40 11/09/04 Tue

We'll never go back to the mother country as long as they keep pronouncing it shed-yule. We won't even speak about the BBC pronounciation of foreign places.

They are certainly right about American beer. But, stout is even closer to sewer water in colour (sic) and texture.

American cars? Do they still make American brand cars anymore. Most of them made here seem to be Japanese.

Chips are American. Just ask the folks at Saratoga where they were invented. The British do still remember Saratoga, don't they?

How the heck would we know people in movies were foreigners if they didn't all have British accents, whether they were supposed to be from China, Russia, or Zaire? Granted a few people sound like Germans or Russians in our movies, but they aren't just villains. They are down right evil.

Did you ever notice how the Queen and her family sound more like Americans than the average English people do?

Heck, Wales and Scotland are easing their way out. Why would they want us back in?

[> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- LadyStarlight, 19:48:19 11/09/04 Tue

A teeny point here, but Canada did win two back to back World Series. So, technically, up until Toronto loses the Blue Jays, it is played outside of American soil.

(I know that you didn't write it, but still)

[> [> so you've bought in... -- anom, 22:48:24 11/09/04 Tue

...to the concept that "America" just means the US? Last time I looked, Canada was in (North) America!

[> [> [> its simply a matter of usage -- frisby, 03:40:15 11/10/04 Wed

A friend of mine from Brazil refers to the US alone as America and says that people there refer to the new world as Columbia and not America, leaving 'america' for the states alone. I know that in american jargon "America" refers to the 'new world' or north, central, and south america, but for many places around the globe 'america' refers only to the states. In Europe I think they call us for the most part 'the states' --

A friend of mine from Canada still refers to the commonwealth as that which canada is part of. I think it's easy to confuse various geographical, cultural, and political terms. Just think of England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, the British Isles, the Empire, and the Commonwealth.

And then again, things can change quickly ....

[> [> [> [> Re: its simply a matter of usage -- skeeve, 07:38:36 11/16/04 Tue

USAans tend to mean the USA when they say America.
I've read that South Americans really hate to hear America
used to refer to just the USA.
That was some time ago. It might have changed since.
The Americas means the same thing pretty much everywhere in the Americas.
BTW there is more than one United States in the Americas.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: its simply a matter of usage -- anom, 09:04:56 11/16/04 Tue

"I've read that South Americans really hate to hear America
used to refer to just the USA.
That was some time ago. It might have changed since."

I've heard Latin Americans complain about this too, seeing it as arrogance on the part of "the colossus of the North." But again, it's been awhile since I heard anyone say this.

"BTW there is more than one United States in the Americas."

Yep--Brazil's official name is the United States of Brazil (don't know Portuguese well enough to attempt it). But at least they don't try to lay claim to an entire continent...or two.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: its simply a matter of usage -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:31:16 11/17/04 Wed

Well, when the name "United States of America" was created, it was the only "United States" in the Americas, so there wasn't really a conflict there. Considering that the USA is the only country that actually has the word "America" in its name, referring to it as America makes a fair bit of sense. Besides, when referring to the continents, it's either "North America", "South America", or "the Americas". There's not really anything else that, if called simply America, you could be sure what was being talked about.

[> [> [> [> [> what 'america' means -- frisby, 14:01:05 11/16/04 Tue

My friend from Brazil said 'america' is reserved there to mean exclusively the US and 'columbia' is the preferred term for the new world generally (both n & s america).

But maybe she was a minority?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what 'america' means -- anom, 19:06:57 11/20/04 Sat

Maybe specifically in Brazil, or maybe it's just your friend's individual opinion, or that of her social circle. I don't remember specifically ever hearing "Columbia" for the N/S American landmass, although I do remember a guest speaker in college telling my class that in Spanish (or maybe just Latin American Spanish), there were 5 continents: America, Europe, Africa, Asia, & Australia. That's probably why, every time I heard the guy on that cellphone service ad (can't remember the name of either one) say the same rate applied for calls to "anywhere in America," I wanted to ask, "North and South America?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what 'america' means: two things -- frisby, 13:19:49 11/21/04 Sun

On the one hand 'america' seems to mean both the north and south american continents, including the islands etc -- the whole new world

but on the other hand, for some people around the globe 'america' simply means the United States of America and nothing more

names are so funny and contingent and arbitrary and idiosyncratic etc...

[> That's just grand! -- Duell, 07:49:41 11/10/04 Wed

I absolutely loved it. However. . . November 2th?

[> [> Hmmm... I don't know -- frisby, 08:23:58 11/10/04 Wed

I don't know if that is just a typo or if the brits really do 2th instead of 2nd

[> [> [> Definitely a typo -- Bjerkley, 13:26:25 11/10/04 Wed


[> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- William Givens, 15:21:15 11/14/04 Sun

No, I'm afraid this is not possible. Unfortunately, whoever wrote this is trying to make British people look bad. It's "aluminum," not "aluminium," you nitwit! And what about making us play cricket instead of baseball? That's always fun! And I'm sorry, but we are not going to tolerate being virtually represented by Parliament again. And this from the country that told us six by nine is forty-two and that leprechauns are hobbits! Good grief!

[> [> 42 hobbits -- skeeve, 07:42:00 11/16/04 Tue

I get the HGttG reference.
It's wrong, but I get it.
What is the supposed association of hobbits and leprechauns?

[> Re: Bush Wins Again -- Therefore: Effective Immediately! -- skeeve, 07:44:50 11/16/04 Tue

Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

Ah. A new .sig file.
In case you hadn't noticed, Epsiode Two is here! Click the picture above! -- CW, 19:15:36 11/10/04 Wed


Replies:

[> Re: In case you hadn't noticed, Epsiode Two is here! Click the picture above! -- Jane, 21:19:48 11/10/04 Wed

Wow. Great episode! This is exciting stuff. Nicely done, Arethusa.

[> [> Re: In case you hadn't noticed, Epsiode Two is here! Click the picture above! -- Alistair, 22:36:49 11/10/04 Wed

Of course the apocalyptic army of demons sent by W&H brought about some sort of Apocalypse.

[> [> Thank you, Jane! -- Arethusa, 15:00:44 11/11/04 Thu


[> Re: In case you hadn't noticed, Epsiode Two is here! Click the picture above! -- Pony, 06:21:11 11/11/04 Thu

Yay Arethusa! I thought the dialogue was excellent, really spot on. And a great ending!

[> [> Thanks, Pony! -- Arethusa, 15:03:19 11/11/04 Thu

I had a lot of fun writing it.

[> Re: In case you hadn't noticed, Epsiode Two is here! Click the picture above! -- LadyStarlight, 10:24:05 11/11/04 Thu

Go Arethusa! Great job!

[> [> Thank you, LadyStarlight! -- Arethusa, 15:05:20 11/11/04 Thu


[> Yay, Arethusa! -- cjl, 20:49:26 11/11/04 Thu

I loved the mythology you built for the Wa!Jani, and how they worked as a society. They felt like a living, breathing community rather than the usual tribal cliche you see in most "desert" fiction.

Oh, and a belated acknowledgement: when I was pounding my palm against my brain trying to think of a literary context for the vision quest in 6.1, arethusa said the three magic words: "mad tea party." The minute I read those three words, I said to myself, "march hare," and right after that, "Feigenbaum." From there, acts II and III practically wrote themselves.

You see, skeptics? Collaboration works!

[> [> Thanks! I couldn't have done it without you, Masq and anom. -- Arethusa, 08:17:56 11/19/04 Fri

Yeah for collaboration!

[> Woo hoo! -- monsieurxander, 10:47:47 11/17/04 Wed

I loved loved loved LOVED it. Especially the e ending. (And I kinda liked the Saint George reference, myself, as a fan of the Crimson graphic novels). Great job, Arethusa. Pretty soon we'll probably be sending you guys fan mail. :)

[> [> Thank you! -- Arethusa, 08:19:29 11/19/04 Fri

I'm glad you enjoyed it. Fan mail--hee!
Home and Away (Angel Odyssey 6.2) -- Tchaikovsky, 07:28:13 11/11/04 Thu

Hello.

Hoom hmm. Lots of big fight scenes in this one, so somewhat less to talk about from my perspective, but there were a few moments I thought were really good.

-Exodus. The Wa!Jhani in this episode begin to really resemble the Jewish race in many aspects of their development. Second installment; Exodus, and I'm guessing this is not an accident. The interesting spin on this is how we interpret the character of Moses in this story. Is Moses the shaman, asking for help up on Mount Sinai, with the dragon in his lair, and getting manna and asphyxiation? Or is Angel Moses, but a failing one- one who attempts to lead his chosen people to freedom, but ends up failing, unable to escort them to their home. The shaman dies, like Moses having to hand on to Joshua before achieving the final exile and conquest of his people. But when we look at Angel, do we see another type of Moses- a person still too detached to lead a set of people to freedom; a man so isolated he thinks always of return to his own dimension before th efate of a whole clan?

They are favoured by the Gods for their faithfulness and service
-Also, there's a rather cynical spin on the idea that the Israelites had a right to their chosen land. The whole idea of their Gods helping them, of Angel, Spike, Gunn and Illyria being like Samsons, like Judges, sent to carry out the orders of the Kings and damn intellectual thought, is pervasive. Do we reach the end of the episode, crying in the wilderness with the Wah!Jhani, singing in low guttural voices, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? And art so far from the voice of my calling.' Or do we merely, pragmatically say- the tribesman believed in God, and now their superstition has deserted them, they can start to deal with truth. If he is the son of God, let him deliver him.

-This parallels against the insistent idea of Angel as Abraham or Moses or Joseph, a great patriarch going to live in the Egypt of Wolfram and Hart at the beginning of Season Five. As they return to a Los Angeles devestated by apocalypse, are they any better off than the wandering Was?

This brings up the idea of home, potently kept just under the surface of the sparse, elegant dialogue. Inside the tent, the Shaman keeps his paradise, but it is a paradise of comfort, of homeliness as well. In a sense, the shaman has already found himself a home. What is idea of home? The place where we come from, or the place where we have the most comfort? The unforgivable image of the episode is the shot at the end of the first act of the two moons merging into one sun above the desert. Is our home in exile, (in the Forest of Arden of 'Twelfth Night'), any less real than our home in our Heimatland; the home of Homeland Security, the home of Babylon, where we sit down and weep?

-Most things seem to remind me of 'The Godfather' at the moment, but I had a vivid image of Angel waking up to find a Dragon's head staring back at him after the relevant scene. I like the fact that despite telling in this episode that he's given up his Shanshu, his chance of an earthly trophy for his championship, he still loves the ideas of material trophies just as much.

-The toner is mentioned. Now what makes things good and evil is truly spilt all over the floor.

Good stuff, Arethusa, thanks.

TCH

Replies:

[> Re: Home and Away (Angel Odyssey 6.2) -- Arethusa, 15:43:20 11/11/04 Thu

One of the things I like about Buffy and Angel and Firefly is that many of the characters create new homes and families to replace ones that are lost. But we have such deep expectations of what home is or should be. Can we recognize a home when we see it?

Thanks, TCH.

[> [> Re: Home and Away (Angel Odyssey 6.2) -- ZachsMind, 09:50:50 11/12/04 Fri

Excellent work and some great visuals for the mind's eye. Goodness knows how some of those things coulda been accomplished on a television budget, but that's one advantage to a virtual season: The imagination knows no budget. Still, when we got to the point where Angel & Spike are swimming a great distance, I found myself distanced from the story trying to imagine how Whedon and M.E. as a whole would have orchestrated that. How do you film that? Could it be done CGI? How many cuts would it take to make it look like a great distance quickly, while still realizing your stars need oxygen tanks just off camera? And goodness knows if there's one air bubble escaping from James Marsters' nostrils there's gonna be endless debates online as to whether or not that was realistic.

I kinda predicted the end of the trip back, but I was guessing that soon as the Shaman entered the alley that a stray demon would kill him. So the use of Earth's polluted air was a nice pleasant surprise. Still though, the plot development was predictable. Our Fang Gang's insistence they return to their home before the Was!Jani did, reminded me of Ash in Army of Darkness being upset that just because he recited the words wrong when he got the book, he doesn't get to go home because he's doomed his new friends to certain death. Then too, it was kinda predictable.

So where some see references to the Bible, I see references to Sam Raimi. Still. Great read. Looking forward to the rest of the season.
Congradulations -- jeff scarr, 09:24:45 11/11/04 Thu

These two episodes of the "sixth" season of Angel are quite enjoyable. While reading the scripts, I had no trouble picturing the action unfolding as it would have on television. The episodes as written would be difficult to fit into the 45 odd minutes of airtime typical of an hour long drama, but otherwise they are very plausible continuations of the stories of our heroes.
I look forward to the next episodes with anticipation. Again, congradulations and well done.

Replies:

[> Re: Congradulations -- Arethusa, 15:06:28 11/11/04 Thu

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
The First Slayer in "Restless" -- Roy, 13:01:28 11/11/04 Thu

While reading various essays and reviews on the BtVS episode, "Restless" (4.22), it seemed to me that many critics and viewers came away with a slightly negative view on the First Slayer. Many seemed to see her as a symbol of the harsh and brutal life of the Chosen One - the Slayer. And that the First Slayer was someone that Buffy should not emulate. But was that the real First Slayer that the Scoobies - especially Buffy - had dreamt of in "Restless"? Or simply a manifestation of their own fears?

The First Slayer had seemed nothing more than a blur in both Willow and Xander's dreams to me. In Giles' dream, he tells her that she is nothing against his own intelligence. She responds by telling him that she does not need a Watcher - before killing him.

Was this encounter part of a manifestation of Giles' fears that Buffy no longer needed him and that he had become obsolete in her life as the Slayer? Giles had certainly harbored that fear as early as Season 5's "Buffy vs. Dracula" (5.01). And in the end, he finally confronted that fear . . . and lost his protegee, after his failure to help Wood kill Spike in Season 7's "Lies My Parents Told Me" (7.17).

In Buffy's dream, the First Slayer appeared as the manifestation of an uncivilized, cold and unrelenting killing machine. A savage, whose livelihood only centered around killing demons, and who lacked any connection with humanity. Was this the real First Slayer? Or was she a manifestation of Buffy's fears about being cut off from her friends . . . and that her position of the Slayer was turning her into a cold, killing machine? Buffy had first expressed the latter fear in "Buffy vs. Dracula" and later in "Intervention" and "Touched" (7.20). The main reason she kept her sexual relationship with Spike a secret, was due to her fear that her friends would desert her out of disgust. In fact, her fear of being alone seemed to have originated from her estrangement from her father, due to her parents' divorce and reinforced itself after both Angel and Riley had left her.

In the end, her overenthusiastic embrace of her role as Slayer eventually led to her friends deserting her in "Empty Places" (7.19) [or Spaces]. And following her hasty reunion with the Scoobies, both she and Faith realized that no matter how many people they surround themselves with, they would always be alone. Isn't that the same for everyone? Maybe she failed to realize that it is all a matter of balance. Yes, it is healthy to connect with others. But there is also a time when an individual needs to re-connect with him or herself and realize that sometimes, you only have yourself to depend upon, as Buffy had learned in "Touched", "End of Days" (7.21) and "Becoming, Part II" (2.22).

Had the First Slayer always known this? Who knows? I've never read any of the "Tales of the Slayer" comics. I would love to hear from someone who has read this series of comics on what she was really like.

Replies:

[> Re: The First Slayer in "Restless" -- Malandanza, 09:30:20 11/15/04 Mon

"While reading various essays and reviews on the BtVS episode, "Restless" (4.22), it seemed to me that many critics and viewers came away with a slightly negative view on the First Slayer. Many seemed to see her as a symbol of the harsh and brutal life of the Chosen One - the Slayer. And that the First Slayer was someone that Buffy should not emulate. But was that the real First Slayer that the Scoobies - especially Buffy - had dreamt of in "Restless"? Or simply a manifestation of their own fears?"

I think that much of what was in each of the dreams was a manifestation of each individual's subconscious rather than a revealed truth. A few examples that I recall off-hand: Xander's view of Tara/Willow was very different from what the viewers' see, as is his view of Spike replacing him the group (training to be a watcher) or his view of Joyce; Giles' view of how he treats Buffy (as a child looking for his approval) or Spike's posturing; Willow seeing herself as the high school Willow under layers of disguise.

However, the First Slayer is different. What did Willow or Xander know about the first slayer at all? And if their imaginations conjured up an image of a dangerous slayer, it would most likely have been Faith-based, given that each hates and fears Faith (pre-Season Seven, at least). The same is true for Buffy -- she may have more information about the First Slayer than her friends, but is it likely that Buffy's brain would conjure an accurate picture of the First Slayer? Now the cheeseman was more like what Buffy's mixed-up brain produces (she comes up with jumbles like "I live for Kissing-Toast" in FH&T). I don't see that the First Slayer Buffy sees in her dream could be a product of Buffy's imagination and fears. Giles', maybe, since he has access to more information about the First Slayer than he shared with the group -- but I didn't see any significant bleeding of one person's imagination into another's.

My impression is that the First Slayer we saw was the real First Slayer (at least, the real First Slayer by the end of her term as slayer). The fears of the Scoobies we saw were more like the Halloween episode with the tiny fear demon -- drawn from the subconscious of each Scooby to unnerve him as the First Slayer hunted him through the landscape of their minds.

In Season Seven, we even see that the slayers are powered by demons (lots of hints before that, of course, like BvD and Spike's comments about what kind of demon is Buffy).

[> [> Re: The First Slayer in "Restless" -- Lisa, 12:19:56 11/15/04 Mon

"My impression is that the First Slayer we saw was the real First Slayer (at least, the real First Slayer by the end of her term as slayer). The fears of the Scoobies we saw were more like the Halloween episode with the tiny fear demon -- drawn from the subconscious of each Scooby to unnerve him as the First Slayer hunted him through the landscape of their minds."


I don't understand. Why do you see Giles and Buffy's POV of everyone else as a false view on their parts, and their view of the First Slayer in "Restless" as accurate? The comic book, "Tales of the Slayer" was mentioned. Was the portrayal of the First Slayer in "Restless" the same as it was in the comic book?

I noticed that as the show progressed, Buffy's view of the First Slayer became less cliched and more rounded. By the time of "Get It Done", she viewed the FS as a young woman who had been a fellow victim of the paternalistic manipulations of the Watchers (or in the FS's case, the Shadowmen).

[> [> [> Re: The First Slayer in "Restless" -- Malandanza, 09:50:44 11/16/04 Tue

I don't understand. Why do you see Giles and Buffy's POV of everyone else as a false view on their parts, and their view of the First Slayer in "Restless" as accurate?

In the real world, I'm sure you could find a person who knows himself so well that his own view of himself matches pretty well with the view his friends and neutral observers have of him, but in the Buffyverse, such self-knowledge is rare. In Willow's dream we are treated to Willow's view of Willow -- which is completely unlike the view Buffy, Xander, Giles, and the viewers have of her -- and it is a view of herself that we have seen her have consistently from season to season up to her meltdown in Season Six. Similarly with Xander -- each season we get Zeppo-esque episodes with Xander feeling useless, yet we have seen him as a vital part of the group. Giles' view of his relationship with Buffy in Restless is at odds with his true relationship -- Restless Giles refusing to give any encouragement to the Restless Buffy (who looks to him for support much as Wesley yearned for support from his father) is very much unlike Giles' affection for Buffy we see in episodes like Innocence. Buffy's view of Riley and government is beyond the normal paranoia we see in the show -- and comical as well. I see the dreams as truly reflecting how each of the characters sees himself rather than a true reflection of the characters -- Willow, Giles, Xander, and Buffy lack self-knowledge and have distorted views of themselves as a result.

The view of the First Slayer is something I don't believe is drawn from the perceptions of the characters, so isn't biased by their perceptions. We ought to have seen very different First Slayers had each character been responsible for creating his own out of his fears and misconceptions -- not a similar figure stalking through each mind in turn. Xander's slayer almost certainly would have been highly sexualized, and there's no telling what Willow or Buffy would have come with.

I noticed that as the show progressed, Buffy's view of the First Slayer became less cliched and more rounded. By the time of "Get It Done", she viewed the FS as a young woman who had been a fellow victim of the paternalistic manipulations of the Watchers (or in the FS's case, the Shadowmen).

The Shadownmen are inconsistent with Restless -- Giles says, before being killed in his dream, that the First Slayer never had a watcher, yet in Season Seven, we see that the Council preceeded the Slayer -- they created her. In any event, the First Slayer in Restless, whatever she may have been before the demonic infusion, is a feral creature.

[> [> [> [> Re: POVs on the First Slayer -- Rich, 18:16:45 11/16/04 Tue

I've already posted part of this. To reprise: IMO, what we see in Restless is the "spirit" of the First Slayer, not the FS herself - hence she isn't really a complete person. As you said, she's a feral creature.

The FS isn't part of Giles, Willow, or Xander - she's able to enter their dreams only because of the merging spell used in the preceding episode, when they were all "linked" to Buffy. Buffy, OTH, is an inheritor of the FS, because of her Calling. She *shares* the qualities embodied in the spirit. The FS entered the others from Buffy. She's able to speak to it because she is, in a sense, talking to herself.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: POVs on the First Slayer -- Lisa, 12:52:22 11/17/04 Wed

So, we are to accept that she is this one-note feral creature who is also socially backward, and who follows the Shadowmen's instructions without question?

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a cliche. In fact, Giles and Buffy's dreams of the FS sound like cliches, based on their POVs.

Also, although the Shadowmen did create the First Slayer, that doesn't mean that they had acted as her Watchers. We don't really know what happen. Unless the "Tales of the Slayer" comics told us one way or the other.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: POVs on the First Slayer -- Rich`, 13:21:22 11/17/04 Wed

I'm speculating that what we saw wasn't a complete "creature" at all - or at least not a complete human one. More like an embodiment of "Slayerhood" (or something), without the more human qualities that an actual Slayer would presumably have.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: POVs on the First Slayer -- Malandanza, 15:58:44 11/17/04 Wed

I think that in most cases, a person's "spirit" is that person, but I think Slayers are more like souled vampires -- certainly we had hints (prior to Season Seven) that Slayer powers are "rooted in darkness" -- and confirmation in Season Seven. Angel, on the other hand, is the result of two spirits coexisting (okay, maybe no coexisting so much as inhabiting) the same body. I think Slayers are more like Angel -- they have their normal, human soul, and they also have a touch of darkness.

When Buffy died and her spirit went to a heavenly dimension, I don't believe the slayer spirit came along for the ride -- it was just Buffy. She was at peace for the first time since she became a slayer, which I don't think would have been the case had a piece of primordial evil come along for the ride. In the case of the First Slayer, I see two possibilities:

1) that the soul of the slayer was corrupted by long association with the demon, so what we saw was the soul of the first slayer, but one devoid of humanity after years of unrelenting slaughter.

2) the thing we saw was the demonic force that powers the slayers, corrupted over a long period of association with the slayers, so that, like the vampire spirits, it has adopted the manners of its hosts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: POVs on the First Slayer -- Rich, 18:10:24 11/17/04 Wed

I lean toward the 2nd of these, but I agree the first is plausible. My reasoning, if you can call it that, is something like this : why can Buffy talk with it & the others can't ? Because it's *part* of her, but not the others. It enters their minds through the spell, from Buffy.

Your 2nd choice - FS as "force" - would fit this pretty well. I used "spirit" because I think someone on the show actually referred to it that way, but I'm too lazy to verify - & "force" works too.

Just speculation, of course, but I think it explains what we see.

[> [> Good points -- Sophist, 12:24:11 11/15/04 Mon

And good to see one of your posts.

[> [> Re: The First Slayer in "Restless" -- Rich, 13:17:00 11/15/04 Mon

For what it's worth - I think what we saw was the *Spirit* of the First Slayer - using "spirit" in the sense of "the spirit of the law", rather than "ghost". It was an embodiment of essential Slayer qualities - it was "real" (whatever that means in this context) but it wasn't a complete person - it didn't have a complete personality. Similarly, in "Get it Done", (if that's the correct episode), Buffy rejected the "essence" of the original demon, not an actual demon.
For Frisby, in the election's aftermath -- manwitch, 04:59:22 11/12/04 Fri

If strong language offends you, this might not be for you. But if you're interested in a serious discussion of the implications of the election results, this piece gets it as spot on as any I've seen.

Important article with salient and well argued points

Replies:

[> Thanks, I'll read it. The volcano is subsiding. -- frisby, 09:44:23 11/12/04 Fri

I appreciate it and will check it out. At the advice of my father-in-law, I'm trying to calm down and be patient. He quoted a line from Emerson (from "Compensation). In fact, here's his whole message reacting to one of my raves. Maybe it will help others too.

"Hey, come off it! It's their --the winners'--problem. not yours/ours. This is my 17th presidential election. It's the worst, no doubt, the outcome potentially the most radical, but you're ignoring the only partially tapped intelligence of what for now might be called the losers. Bluesers? You've lived too long in the red zone. I always loved the news business because it's an unceasing learning experience. There's nothing really new, just changing measurements of things that appear and reappear on the menu of life--wars, depressions, religions, social mores, etc. Even the measurements fade, then repeat themselves. For years I've carried in my wallet some telling lines from Emerson on the "law of compensation:" "The dice of God are always loaded. For everything you have missed you have gained something else . . . The world looks like a multiplication table, or a mathematical equation, which turn it how you will, balances itself . . . Every secret is told, every crime is punished, every virtue rewarded, every wrong readdressed in silence and certainty." Having written, edited or managed news for more than fifty years I still carry that in my wallet. Have faith, breathe deeply, be patient."

So, I'm letting go of my disappointment and anger and will wait with patience for things to right themselves up. I've also been watching season seven of Buffy on the FX channel (I think the dvd will go on sale next week).

Anyway, thanks again. I'll now look at the site.

[> That was great! And it brought relief! Thanks Manwitch! -- frisby, 09:57:34 11/12/04 Fri

That helped immensely. I laughed out loud and felt a lot of anger leave with the laugh. The 'strong language' was just right (although it might offend some as you said). Speaking truth to power? I recommend it also for those not offended by swearing and such. Here's the url again:

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature3.html

(although not in hypertext format, cause I've forgotten how to do an anchor since I retired and would have to look it up)

Thanks again Manwitch. I'll show it to others including my father-in-law.

[> [> So, you're not on board for Edwards in 2008? ;) -- Kansas, 10:08:05 11/12/04 Fri


[> [> [> I prefer Hilary but not if she can't win... -- frisby, 11:37:26 11/12/04 Fri

Bill and Hillary have been my favorite ever so far, and if Bush 1 can be followed by Bush 2 then why can't Hilary follow Bill?

I like Hilary a lot. But Falwell can't say the name without spitting in so doing, so maybe there really is a lot of anti-hilary in parts of the nation.

I like Edwards but he really did come across as a bit inexperienced, especially in the debate with cheny. But I also like Dean too, his big scream and all. I don't think another Kerry run would be wise. Although I had hoped for a Gore/Bush re-run.

Then again, all of this is assuming we still 'have' a nation four years ago -- but don't get me started on how bad it just might get under the 2nd bush 2....

Maybe more pertinet, who will replace bush 2? McCain? Or someone like Ashcroft or Pat Robertson again or somebody else like that from Jesusland? And will we be able to even 'have' a fair election in 08? Again, assuming war or pestilence or economic depression or whatever doesn't just change the entire equation....

I assume you 'are' for Edwards 08?

[> [> [> [> I'm thinking you're right about Jeb -- Vickie, 13:19:25 11/12/04 Fri

Look for a certain governor of Florida to become more prominent on the national scene in the next four years.

[> [> [> [> [> I can't believe bush 3!!!! Are Americans 'that' stupid? -- frisby, 14:41:37 11/12/04 Fri

I really really can not believe the american people would go for a bush 3 -- we fought the english to stop hereditary crap.

Of course I was wrong about bush 2 back in 2000. I thought even then the people would not for anything even touching of heredity like that..........

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I can't believe bush 3!!!! Are Americans 'that' stupid? -- Vickie, 15:39:28 11/12/04 Fri

Ok now, breathe. And stop tarring us (relatively few, perhaps) sensible Americans with that bush--er, brush.

I would hate to see Jeb Bush in the White House, unless I can get a time reset deal and it's INSTEAD of his little brother.

But yeah, I think he's likely on the Republican short list for 2008.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. ;-) -- Rob, 18:44:57 11/12/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Jeb Bush said he would not run in 08' (Thank My Secular God) -- Mr. Banangrabber, 14:17:21 11/13/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Jeb Bush said he would not run in 08' (Thank My Secular God) -- BuffyObsessed, 09:38:21 11/14/04 Sun

Bush couldn't run in 2008 even if he wanted to. Presidents are only allowed to serve two terms.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Jeb Bush said he would not run in 08' (Thank My Secular God) -- LadyStarlight, 10:32:55 11/14/04 Sun

I'm pretty sure that Jeb Bush is the Florida governor, and George W.'s brother.

[> Soap boxing from an idiot -- Vegeta, 12:08:31 11/15/04 Mon

Holy cow, that was a rambling pile of crap! Talk about soooo not getting it. I like his ignorance of Democrats being in control of the segregated South during the Civil War. This guy should really look at the Red/Blue county map of the US. His heart would sink... cause it's all red almost eveywhere. I really like people like that babbling fool, his thought pattern insures that Democrats will never win nationally again. Go Massachusetts moron.

Vegeta

[> [> The map of Britain is mostly blue -- Tchaikovsky, 12:50:13 11/15/04 Mon

Well, actually, even that's not really true any more. But for most of the 20th century, the Conservative government, whether in government or not, (the fact they were 'the natural party of government' has little bearing), paineted the country blue. But that's because they were the natural government of the big countryside areas, with the rambling estates and retired general. The small (area-wise) densely populated urban areas were red, but they looked like two constituencies if you compared them to, for example, the Scottish highlands and islands.

The red country is largely just chance, the way that people scatter.

Also, I think I'm right in saying that comparing 1860's Democrats to 2000's Democrats, (and similarly Republicans) is misleading, in the sense that there's not much continuity of policy over those 140 years.

Not that I'm arguing that the original piece was temperate or balanced, you understand. It was one of those rants you occasionally feel like having at postmen who deliver your parcels at 6am.


TCH

TCH
Lost - "White Rabbit" Analysis -- Evan, 17:08:19 11/12/04 Fri

http://www.teegerschiller.com/lost-philosophy

Episode 104 - "White Rabbit"

i) The Leader

Since the beginning, Jack has been our main character. He hasn t actually had that much more screen time than some others, but he comes across, clearly, as the lead (interesting that they were actually planning on killing him off in the pilot!). Oftentimes a character in this role, the attractive heroic leader, ends up being fairly shallow, with lots of accusations of being boring thrown around by fans. And, actually, Jack has received some criticism like this. But I think he s done a fairly great job up to this point of coming across as someone who is actually a talented leader, but who also has some subtle regret at having to take that role (and some not so subtle, such as outright refusing to go to Claire s memorial service last week because it s not his thing .) This week, the critics can cram it, because this character s depth quite effectively begins to be uncovered here, or at the very least we get to see some of his foundations.

In each of the last two episodes, we ve seen a character get closure on the island to some situation that first brought them to Australia, and then, ending badly, led them onto this flight back to Los Angeles. Kate was on the run from the law in Australia, and, having been captured, was being escorted back to America. But, on the island, she got away again. Locke was in Australia to go on a spiritual walkabout but, without the use of his legs, he was turned away from the excursion and sent home. The plane crash, somehow, gave him the use of his legs back allowing his spiritual journey to begin. Jack is similarly in need of closure, and this is why he was unable to attend the memorial service last week. Not because he doesn t care about the people, or because he thought it was a dumb idea, or because he s a jerk. No - he sat off on his own during that ceremony because it represented letting go of the people who are dead and gone, and this week we find out that Jack wasn t quite ready to do that yet.

ii) Jack s Story

When Jack was a child, he found himself having to make a hard decision: try to help someone in need and surely get his ass kicked, or walk away and leave his friend to fend for himself. Truly a tough one, but of course Jack the hero tries to help and gets beaten up for it. He heads home and gets a lecture from his father who basically tells him not to try, because he doesn t have what it takes to handle failure. Jack s Dad, chief of surgery, does indeed have what it takes. He s able to see a child die on his operating table and, afterwards, return home to eat dinner and laugh it up with the Carol Burnett show (with just a little bit of help from sweet, sweet, booze). Now, is it just me, or is this a pretty warped view of what it takes to be a surgeon? I know I sure don t have what it takes, if that s it. And how can Jack s father expect Jack, still a child, to be able to handle failure with consequences of that magnitude? But, still, he says to his young son, Don t choose, jack. Don t decide. You don t want to be a hero. You don t want to try and save everyone because, when you fail, you just don t have what it takes . And right up to the present day, this sentiment shapes how Jack views himself.

Doctor, come quick! Someone s drowning!! Jack sees splashing in the distance and runs into the ocean to save whoever s out there. He can t find anyone, so he dives down and pulls up... Boone? The lifeguard? Damn, this guy s bad at his job. Jack drags Boone back to shore, but there was someone else out there too. Someone Boone was trying to save. Jack leaps back into the water to try and save her, but he s too late. Now, by any account, Jack did his best. But that s not how he sees it. You tried , Kate tells him. No I didn t I decided not to go after her . Well, yes, he did decide not to go after her, but it was because Boone needed to be saved too, despite his claims that he would ve been fine. If Jack had tried to save them both at once, he might ve gotten all three of them killed.

So why is Jack so hard on himself? Maybe it s because, over the years, he s really taken his father s advice to heart and has, in some instances, not done all that he could have because he was afraid of failing. He sees this as one of those instances, and he feels guilt, as anyone would. But this internalized fear of failure and belief that he doesn t have what it takes is truly beyond the point of reason, because Jack really did handle the situation as well as it could ve possibly been handled. Later in the episode, when the others are getting angry with Boone for his misguided attempt to help them save water, Jack stops them and points out that he tried to save a woman s life that morning (not to mention he runs a business!), so how can they condemn him? Well, if Jack s really listening to what he s saying, he should realize that his own argument applies to the way he s been treating himself ever since the incident, and probably long before that. Fortunately, there s a good chance that he does in fact realize this, because by the end of the episode, he s finally gotten the closure he needed.

iii) The Journey Begins, and Water.

This episode is called White Rabbit , an Alice In Wonderland reference. In Lewis Carroll s book, Alice follows a white rabbit who may not actually be there on a strange journey with no clear purpose or destination, but with lots of strange symbolism. Jack, similarly, follows an alleged hallucination of his father, also on a strange journey with no clear purpose or destination (that is, until he reaches the end), but with lots of symbolism. Jack s journey begins and ends with water. At the start, the water is dirty and dangerous. Dirty in the sense that, even though the survivors are surrounded by the very substance they need to survive, they can t drink it because drinking ocean water will only make things worse. Dangerous because, well, it killed Joanna and almost Boone too. Jack must find a way to clear up the water both literally, so they can drink and survive, and also metaphorically, so that he can cure his mind of the damage done to him by his father. Speaking of Jack s father, there is one other example of dirty water at the start of this journey: alcohol.

The first shot we see of Jack's father doesn't show his face, it shows an arm and a hand, holding a glass of liquor-- a 'drink' in the vernacular. [Is] the 'drink' metaphorically drowning Jack's father?
-OnM, ATPo Board

Following in the pattern of the last couple of episodes, we get to find out why Jack was in Australia; he was already on a journey, but this one was to find his father. And he does find him, at the morgue. It seems his father s drinking himself to death was the ultimate guilt trip, as, according to Jack s mother, he ran away to Australia because of something Jack did. The same something that made his father lose all of his friends. We don t get to learn what this something was, because that s the way things are on this show, but for now it doesn t really matter. Whatever it was, it was big, and now his father is dead because of it. Jack failed, as a son, and he may not have what it takes to handle that.

I need to bury my father , he tells the lady at the airport who s giving him a hard time about the fact that his luggage includes a dead body. But that isn t quite right. Burying his father is not the best end to his journey. Rather, what Jack needs to do is accept his father. Recognize the good qualities (even if they be few) and the bad (even if they be many), and integrate the advice he was given in a healthy, positive way. He needs to change his perspective.

iv) The Journey Ends, and Eyes

Perspective is a prominent theme on this show; this is the third episode out of five that has started with an eye opening. At the beginning of this episode, the eye belongs to Jack, as a child. And, in the present, those eyes and the perspective that comes with them remain the same. They still see his father as the man who didn t believe in him, who actually encouraged him not to try anything too difficult. They see life as a collection of hard decisions that often come with far more pressure than he can handle. And he s spent his life trying to prove his father wrong by achieving the things his father told him he couldn t, whether that was what he wanted to do or not. This is a childish reaction, and Jack has a childish perspective. He doesn t judge himself by what he s capable of, he can see only what he s incapable of. Simply put, he underestimates his abilities because his father constantly emphasized his inabilities.

But there are other ways to look at his father s insights. Perhaps what Mr. Shepherd was actually trying to teach his young son was that we all have to recognize our limitations and do the best we can within them. Maybe he was trying to say that Jack didn t need to achieve perfection in order to make him proud; he just needed to be himself. It could be that Mr. Shepherd wasn t really such a bad guy (just a drunk who couldn t quite get his point across clearly). Besides, the flashbacks are from Jack s perspective, and our memories do tend to colour implications onto things that may not have actually been intended.

The island, unsurprisingly, gives Jack just what he needs to come to some of these realizations and change his perspective. It gives him dozens of people who look up to him as a leader, and admire him as a hero, despite his belief that he can t be either. After he almost falls to his death, Locke points this out to him. I m not a leader , whines Jack. And yet they all treat you like one , Locke responds. Locke is the only one who really seems to see that the island is a special place, where the laws of the outside world don t work in quite the same way (though they do have their own logic), and he knows that right now, the island is trying to lead Jack to his miracle . How does he know this? Because he s looked into the eye of the island, and what he saw was beautiful (of course, some other people have looked into that same eye and gotten killed by it it seems to be all a matter of perspective).

(Don t get me wrong; Locke might actually be a nut. There s an interesting part where he assures Jack that he can t be crazy, because crazy people don t know they re going crazy; they think they re getting saner. I m sure it was no accident that this sounds like the perfect description of Locke himself. But, for now, I ll assume that even if Locke is insane, he s also at least partly right the evidence is certainly on his side. And it kind of seems like he s dare I say doing the island s bidding?).

(Oooh, one more thing about perspective. Charlie is revealed to have a tattoo on his arm that says Living is easy with eyes closed , a lyric from the Beatles song Strawberry Fields Forever . The words in and of themselves make a point about how perspective can affect a person s life, and the song they come from is also about perspective: that of a person on drugs or possibly dreaming, depending on who you believe).

So, anyway, to find out where he s going , Jack continues to follow his white rabbit, and it leads him right back to the beginning: to Joanna, the woman who he decided to let drown. Well, to a symbolic representation of her anyway: a quite lovely doll in a pool of fresh water, the end of his journey. Finding that fresh water is symbolic of his ability to be a leader. Both literally, as fresh water is just what his fellow survivors needed him to find, and symbolically, as the water is no longer dirty and dangerous. The doll is a further symbol of childhood, of innocence - for Jack, of starting over, looking at his life with a fresh mind, a new perspective. But before he can rebuild, he must destroy, so he picks up a piece of wood and smashes his father s coffin to bits. He s let out his anger and adopted a more positive perspective about his father, and so he s finally able to bury his father , complete his journey, by realizing that he doesn t actually need to. When he tells Kate that his father died in Australia, she says I m sorry . He responds, Yeah. I m sorry too , and, now, he can really means that. I love it.

v) The Coffin

Alright, here s what I think happened, though I admit this is only one way to interpret things. I think that Jack s father s body was not allowed onto the flight from Sydney. The lady was saying that the proper documentation wasn t completed, and I seriously doubt airlines have any flexibility whatsoever when it comes to transporting corpses without being prepared. I think the resolution must have been that Jack could take the coffin, have a closed-casket funeral with no body, and his father would arrive later, whenever they could transport him properly. The big question then becomes, why did Jack slowly approach the coffin he found on the island (oh, by the way, a piece of the cargo section of the plane was near the fresh water source) and seem surprised when his father s corpse wasn t in it? My answer to that would be that he s been having hallucinations all day, of his father, hallucinations that actually seem to have been leading him to a specific destination but that s impossible. Hallucinations don t have goals, or knowledge. Jack was approaching the coffin not because his father s body should have been in there, but because, hell, if it had been, wouldn t that have just made the perfect ending to this magical journey? But it wasn t. Things were as they were supposed to be. So he did his smashing, and went back to the camp and told everyone he stumbled onto the water source out of pure luck. And, for those who refuse to accept anything mystical on this show, that probably is a perfectly good explanation.

vi) The End

So, yeah, Jack returns to camp and he takes the lead. Because of this experience, Jack is now free to be the man he wants to be just like Locke last week. He gives a nice speech that everyone enjoys. He says, Every man for himself is not gonna work. We need to start organizing, figure out how we re gonna survive here If we can t live together, we re gonna die alone. Powerful stuff - I m surprised there wasn t a slow-clap. Remember the time I was reminded of Nietzsche in the first episode? I think I was onto something even more there than I thought. While Jack is hardly the existential genius I speculated he might be, Nietzsche s philosophy seems to be relevant in another way. It s like, on the island, a person s ideal self-projection, the idea that we all devote our life to realizing, is somehow much easier to achieve for the survivors than for the rest of us. Interesting stuff.

Replies:

[> Evan, have you read the Dark Horizons article on "Lost"? spoilers up to present ep. -- Rufus, 00:31:12 11/14/04 Sun

www.darkhorizons.com



Only part of the article is here, go to the link above for more spoilery bits......



WizardWorld: Paul Dini on Lost - by 'Ranger1138'

"Two clips were shown from this Wednesday's episode. One featured a funny exchange between Hurley and Charlie. Charlie believes that the large man is hording food. He bases this hypothesis on the sheer fact that he hasn't lost any weight in their time on the island. The banter goes back and forth for some time until it is mentioned that Hurley has gone down one belt notch. The second clip was very intense. It showed Sayid torturing Sawyer. This is a long scene that will definitely get that "viewer discretion is advised" box to pop up at least once or twice during the hour. The torture involves fingernails and sharp objects if anyone was curious.

After the clip it was asked if Standards and Practices had issues with the show since it was an 8PM EST slotted show. Paul said that they rarely worry about that kind of thing although they did wonder if they would be able to go ahead with the drug storyline for Charlie. ABC is fully behind the show and it rarely sends in notes to the writing team. The decision to air the show in "Pan and Scan" was the network's decision and the DVDs feature widescreen transfers of the show.

One of the original marketing plans was to release the DVD of the two hour pilot some three weeks after it aired. ABC moved on to the concept of just re-airing the show, like NBC and CBS do now, on Saturdays for those viewers who need to catch up. DVD sets are planned with deleted scenes but Disney and Bad Robot have not decided on any release dates yet. Some time last year ABC decided that they, like the other networks, needed to have a series shot in Hawaii. LOST was ABC's attempt to have a scripted or dramatic version of Survivor. Although ABC preferred to think of it as a "deserted island" show.

Paul said that each writer drew names from a hat. Three names were chosen by each writer. That writer then went off to write the character's history and back story. Paul's character's are John Locke, Sawyer and Sun [Daniel Day Kim's wife]. Paul said that Locke was based off of the real life philosopher John Locke. He also said that Locke was a strategist. He likes the thrill of the hunt and comes to see things like the game he played in episode 104 "Walkabout".

When asked if it was a coincidence that Locke seemed to be around at a character's key moment Paul stated that Locke just seems to be an opportunist. He apparently is not good or evil, however, he may play a given situation either way to gain an advantage. It was also said that the monster is sort of a reflection of yourself. The pilot saw it in horror and he was killed because he feared the monster. Locke saw the monster with true awe, therefore, he was able to survive his encounter.

The monster it's self may not be revealed totally at any point in the series. It may be, as Paul described it, "a Loch Ness Monster kind of thing". Bits and pieces of the beast will be shown throughout the series but a full reveal could prove to be anti-climatic. Still the monster will be explained at some point in future seasons.

[> [> Re: Evan, have you read the Dark Horizons article on "Lost"? spoilers up to present ep. -- Evan, 13:56:53 11/15/04 Mon

Yeah, I read that article! I'm pretty excited about the fact that, even if I'm not necessarily right about some specifics, what Dini said at least confirms that I'm looking at the show the right way, seeing the "monster" and the rest of the island's antics as a reflection of the characters.

[> MY NEXT ANALYSIS WILL HAVE A COMMENT FROM THE WRITER OF THE EPISODE!!!! -- Evan, 13:59:08 11/15/04 Mon

Yay! I just got Javier Grillo-Marxuach, the writer of "House of the Rising Sun", to give me a great quote for my next analysis about the themes in his episode!!! YES!!!

[> [> Awesome! -- Rob, 14:56:51 11/15/04 Mon


[> [> Well done, Evan! -- dub ;o), 18:03:27 11/15/04 Mon

Happy Birthday, Anom! -- Evan, 19:51:57 11/13/04 Sat

Either I'm wrong about your birthday being today, or shame on everyone else who didn't start this thread!!! :)


Happy Birthday!!!

Replies:

[> You aren't wrong! -- LittleBit (passing out the chocolate cake!), 21:40:59 11/13/04 Sat

Happy Birthday, anom!!



[> Have a great day Anom!! -- Ann, 05:25:31 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Birthday, Anom! -- aliera, 06:24:46 11/14/04 Sun


[> Have a great birthday, anom! -- Masq, 06:46:11 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Birthday! -- Pony, 06:49:43 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Birthday! -- LadyStarlight, 08:08:02 11/14/04 Sun

(passes the dark chocolate)

[> Re: Happy Birthday, Anom! -- CW, 08:49:19 11/14/04 Sun

I hope Pun Fun One is still sailing!

[> [> thanks, cw! -- anom, 18:06:01 11/14/04 Sun

Yes, Pun Fun One still sails the Cyber Sea! Birthday/Anniversary chat cruise this Tuesday night!
Allll aboaarrrd!

[> Happy Birthday!! -- Rob, 08:56:07 11/14/04 Sun


[> Hippo Birdie, Two Ewes!!! -- dub ;o), 08:58:41 11/14/04 Sun


[> Going out on a limb here ... -- frisby, 09:22:43 11/14/04 Sun

It's probably politically incorrect, but I'm going to guess you turned 50 today? I turned 50 on 9-11 (the morning began well but now the world seems to divide between before I was 50 and the time after). Whether I'm correct on your turning 50 am I at least right (having met you in Chicago) that we are approximately the same age? or am I way off?

[> [> less far off than you thought -- anom, 18:37:21 11/14/04 Sun

I was 50, up till yesterday. It was a good birthday, although it didn't have the coolness factor of going half-c's. Then again, nothing world-shakingly horrible happened on it either, as I'm sorry to hear it did on your 50th. But planning a birthday party was 1 of the things I didn't have time for w/all the arrangements I was making for the leadup to election day, & afterwards it was too close. Maybe I'll have multiple small celebrations after the fact instead.

[> Late Birthday Greetings -- Vickie, 10:53:12 11/14/04 Sun

I hope it was wonderful.

V.

[> Happy birthday -- TCH, 13:17:21 11/14/04 Sun


[> [> Happy Birthday, anom! Hope it's a great one! -- Jane, 14:00:02 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Birthday, Anom! -- fidhle, 14:25:33 11/14/04 Sun

Happy birthday, friend, and may you have many more.

[> thanks, evan & everyone else! -- anom, 18:00:23 11/14/04 Sun

You're right, Evan--& you just squeaked in under the wire before the day was over (& held the wire up for LittleBit)! But after all, only 1 person can start the thread.

Thanks for the b'day wishes, everyone.

[> Hope you had a great Birthday! -- Ladyhelix (better late than never!), 18:52:16 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Belated Birthday, Anom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Rufus, 19:31:57 11/14/04 Sun


[> [> Adding my belated birthday wishes! -- Cheryl, 19:33:38 11/14/04 Sun


[> [> Late as usual, but no less happy for you. Best Wishes! -- OnM, 19:07:06 11/15/04 Mon


[> Happy Birthday, Anom! -- cjl, 20:19:35 11/14/04 Sun

We have to do an NYC get-together soon.

[> [> yes. we do. -- anom, 07:59:14 11/15/04 Mon

"We have to do an NYC get-together soon."

So let's! When are local folks available? I'm going to be working in midtown (E. 34th St.) on Tuesday through Friday this week, & several ATPo-NYers are in the vicinity. But lunch hours are short, & after work is hard because I usually don't know what time I'm going to get off. Maybe we should try for the weekend instead. Chime in, friends--whaddya think?

[> Happy Birthday! Many Happy Returns! -- Wizard, 21:12:33 11/14/04 Sun


[> Happy Birthday! Many Happy Returns! -- Wizard, 21:15:56 11/14/04 Sun


[> Another Belated Happy Birthday! -- Buffyboy, 11:04:28 11/16/04 Tue

Hope to see you in NYC in July.

[> thanks again to everyone... -- anom, 19:17:21 11/20/04 Sat

...for all the good wishes, chocolate in various forms, Boynton, & exclamation points! @>)

Current board | More November 2004