October 2002 posts
Sociopathic Scoobs, Dippy Ol' Buffy, and a Continuation of Vampire Slaying? (possible spoilers) -- Meems, 16:43:16 10/25/02 Fri
First of all, I'm not here to cause stupid fighting. I've always liked the BtVS concept. And have no problem with whatever direction Joss and company take their overall plots. I don't mind constructive debate, even over a TV show. As long as we're talking debate and not "defending the faith" or bashing on either side of the spuffy fence.
I'm sure the following thoughts aren't new to Buffy fans or haters. Even to die-hards who still refuse to believe an alarming degradation in the show's quality and characterizations began after the first third of Season 6. I won't go into detail of any specific moment or scene, because it's a pointless way to invite useless dispute about thematic milestones over quality level. And I don't feel like dealing with "spoilage" in type, and the fans who are still behind the American or British audiences deserve the same surprises and "Surprises" we did.
A good writer can make a lame plot idea a great and exciting work of art. Alfred Hitchcock proved this time and again with his cost-effective versions of 2nd and 3rd rate mystery novels. And lazy or bad writers can turn a great premise or idea into the same old stuff. Or even worse...
As Joss began to leave more immediate control over the TV versions of Buffy and Angel to work on other projects, a certain quality-level and focus of vision, insight, and emotional and plot integrity began to drift off into the ether of the Jossverse. Joss' TV "flagship" show in the television medium, BtVS, was by far, the worst offender.
The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, even as it occasionally winked at us that Buffy was doing this for a while with Spike. An insulting ploy to cover that fault (and many others) in Season 6 and into Season 7.
Every male on BtVS has been emasculated in one way or another, reduced to a blithering idiot whose own thoughts pale in comparison to any noble and "self-sacrificing" thought that the show's females possess. Every female character has been turned into an "avenging" characature of Grrrl Power. Screwing up as much as the now useless males. But more often than not, being revered after some rationalizing tirade for why she was a jerky, conniving bitch in the first place. Or worse.
If I wanted these rationalizations and stereotypes of male and female behavior, I'd turn on "All My Children" or read any Jackie Collins novel.
Although I loved the Big Bad Mayor and Big Bad Glory's characterizations, BtVS main-plots are usually as interchangeable to one another as any James Bond movie plot and Bond Big Bad. The characterizations and sub-plots are what really made this BtVS a gem, especially compared to the majority of American TV. The main plots and baddies in Buffy were almost never very clever in their structure or mechanics. But that was never the point in the show. The BtVS sub-plots (the Scoobs and their interactions with one another and Sunnydale), are what really covered the flaws of the two-dimensional Big Bads and their one-dimensional Evil.
And again, risking a punch by Buffy fans here, usually, Buffy and the Scoobies' plan of action against the evil was as equally ingenious as most of the Big Bads plans. Not very... Full frontal assault with a back-up spell ready, just in case the assault didn't work. If one filters through the pacing, editing, clever humor, and believable characterizations of BtVS, the supposed differences in the villains and their evil plans don't really hold up.
Now... The sub-plot's obfuscation that always helped with the plausibility factor in the main-plot has fallen almost completely apart. Buffy and the Scoobs' sub-plots (and personal motives) are as shallow and manipulative as the Big Bads and their evil plans.
Here is a group of friends, who as teenagers were often wiser than the adults they saved every week, truly loyal where it really mattered, had as many believable faults as they possessed virtues, to make tuning in every week exciting, fun and a joy. Even in dark periods. Now they're worse than the adults they used to giggle about. And in some very fundamental ways they've displayed emotional/sociopathic behaviour just as evil as any Big Bad they've fought. And this is still excluding any TV ratings-period Scooby-inflicted kills.
Where the Scoobs had their roles in Buffy's arsenal against evil, they are now mere tools in the sub-plots to justify Buffy's irresponsibility (and in some cases evil) as a human, woman, adult and guardian of Good. Where the thirst for ratings and "what if Spidey fought Thor?" ideas have done their damage to the character of Buffy as a believable "hero", the Scoobies' behaviour and choices have been made even worse, to make Buffy look good, and her choices plausible. I agree that sometimes in life people can lose their way. And the writers keep reminding us (with the Scoobs' commentaries on themselves and Buffy), of this. But when you consider all the power at their disposal, all the lessons they have learned in 7 years of fighting on the Hell Mouth, having had to trust in each other, themselves and their victorious continuation of the Universe time and time again, they'd get it by now, wouldn't you?
Although I will agree Joss is trying to repair damage done by Season 6, I believe the TV version of BtVS has prematurely run its course. Some of this season's tactics are not the right method. Sure, (as far as we know) Sunnydale's Hell Mouth isn't moving anytime soon. But this "back to the beginning" tactic in Season 7 is the most obvious flaw (and insult) in getting chemistry back on track. It's insulting since this has been done in several ways on BtVS before. The Scoobs, Buffy and BtVS itself don't get the comeuppance that they truly deserve. They don't truly reap the effects of their irresponsibility to one another. But they do seem to symbolically pull the "I'm a christian/I have a soul and Spike doesn't, and I repent" card though.
In real life, almost all of us do pay a price for the hurtful crap we pull, and the manipulations of people we call friends, even if we're too selfish or stupid to notice it right away (or at all). Those of us that do notice, usually don't make these mistakes again. And I believe that the vast majority of us wouldn't pull what the Scoobies and Buffy have, while the fate of the Universe has been in jeopardy.
We all have our flaws. And good fictional characters must have them as well. It would be boring to read or watch such characters if they were 1950s "perfect". But in participating in a story (as teller or audience), one has to filter through real-life experiences and lessons to determine what type of character we're experiencing. These later versions of Buffy and her Scoobs are screwed up, sociopathic, emotional vampires. We can't be fooled by a typical Xander funny line or Willow sympathetic sigh, that they are our friends still.
Buffy and the Scoobies have degenerated into the type of people, that in real life, no sane person would tolerate in their life for very long. Because you know, if you let them, they'll screw your life up, right along with theirs.
Maybe, like the now jerky always crying Buffy and her recently superfluous and equally jerky Scoobs, BtVS itself needs some serious comeuppance. It will be 7 Seasons and perhaps it's time to give a rest to the TV version of BtVS.
Joss has hinted at big things at the end of Season 7. Of course he has to. It's his show and he wants us to keep watching. There could be some really great stuff coming to end Season 7 (or the TV series with). Maybe for a true comeuppance, Buffy and/or the Scoobs have to truly die, either literally or as the main cast of BtVS? Maybe we have to put up with the annoying and kleptomaniacal Dawn or the "Hey guys, I got my comeuppance!" Faith, as the new Slayer? A still, even newer Slayer?
Or do we get our comeuppance with the now dangerously dippy ol' Buffy and Scoobs hanging out (like some of those over age men and women who prey on teenage campuses), in and around Sunnydale High School yet again?
[>
Totally and completely disagree with everything you said. -- HonorH, 17:03:31 10/25/02 Fri
I am one of season 6's defenders, and I am not in a "co-dependent" relationship with my TV or the show. As for the rest of your diatribe--well, suffice to say, our views are so totally divergent that I don't think either of us will ever convince the other. I'll leave it at that.
[>
Re: Sociopathic Scoobs, Dippy Ol' Buffy, and a Continuation of Vampire Slaying? (possible spoilers) -- wuthering, 17:13:21 10/25/02 Fri
"But when you consider all the power at their disposal, all the lessons they have learned in 7 years of fighting on the Hell Mouth, having had to trust in each other, themselves and their victorious continuation of the Universe time and time again, they'd get it by now, wouldn't you?"
Exactly! You'd think by now they would have figured out who their friends are. AND what they are there for.
[> [>
Sounds like you're answering your own post. Are "wuthering" and "Meems" the same troll? -- redcat, 18:42:19 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Re: Sounds like you're answering your own post. Are "wuthering" and "Meems" the same troll? -- wuthering, 18:46:39 10/25/02 Fri
No, two different trolls.
[> [> [> [>
*raises hand and looks at Masq* --Can we eat the trolls? -- Sophomorica, 18:48:28 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL, you people crack me up... -- Meems, 19:15:10 10/25/02 Fri
If one doesn't agree with your little click, doesn't jump through your "scholarly" hoops and protocol, or hasn't stuck around long enough to be humbled adequately by you before speaking, they're a "troll".
LOL!
Heh... I've met MANY educated idiots in my lifetime. And you guys are yet another example of it. Douglas Adams was right about you lot.
Up against the wall in the next revolution. LOL
I was warned that a few empty headed elitists hang out here defending their intangible cyber-territory, but evidently, I gave more credit than was due.
Hilarious.
You prove certain truths to the mainstream about some of us "geeks".
LOL
[> [> [> [> [> [>
It's "clique." -- Arethusa, 19:22:38 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not in the cyber-world. Get it? "Click" (NT) -- Meems, 19:25:18 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Slave -- Cleanthes, 21:18:44 10/25/02 Fri
He is free who lives as he wishes to live; to whom none can do violence, none hinder or compel; whose impuses are unimpeded, whose desires attain their purpose, who falls not into what he would avoid. Who then would live in error? - None. Who would live deceived and prone to fall, unjust, intemperate, in abject whining at his perceptions of other's opinions? -None. Then does no wicked man live as he would, and therefore neither is he free.
[>
WOW!! This is the best analysis ever!! -- TeacherBoy, 17:36:50 10/25/02 Fri
No, just kidding. This is terrible. I don't just mean the content. Look, I already know that I'm not supposed to write stuff like that, but seriously, it really is. As I was reading it, I started mentally going over some things I already wanted to say, but then I realized that trying to respond in a meaningful way was pointless. Literally. Meems, what the hell was your point? Main Idea? Focus? This sounds like something I would have written in 8th grade. (psst! TeacherBoy, you're not supposed to attack the poster, just the post). Ah, the hell with that. Besides, what would I know, since I'm just (ahem...), "seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with [my] TV set."
Look, Meems, it's not that I don't agree with you. Ok, fine, I don't, but it's just that I hate it when someone is trying to lecture me about how stupid I am, and cannot manage to speak or write at a high school level. To wit:
"stupid fighting" - as opposed to the kind of fighting that isn't stupid
"The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, even as it occasionally winked at us that Buffy was doing this for a while with Spike. An insulting ploy to cover that fault (and many others) in Season 6 and into Season 7." - Jesus, where to start? First off the show always has been about strong women literally and figuratively (get it?). This entire paragraph makes no sense. If you will allow me to re-phrase, I believe what you are trying to say is, something like, 'The show, to fans who aren't completely retarded, became a male bashing show, even as it..[ok, I'm totally lost. I have no idea what you mean about Buffy and Spike]...An insulting ploy that...to...oh, come on. That's not even a sentence.
I love this - "I don't mind constructive debate, even over a TV show", followed later by, "Every female character has been turned into an "avenging" characature of Grrrl Power. Screwing up as much as the now useless males. But more often than not, being revered after some rationalizing tirade for why she was a jerky, conniving bitch in the first place. Or worse."
Ok, I'm done. I have to go out in a few minutes.
Meems, your phraseing is awkward, your attempt at forming a logical arguement is laughable, and your word choice makes no sense. GRADE: D- (you get points for length)
TeacherBoy, who does, in fact, feel much better and can now enjoy his night out with friends a happier boy
ps - I just thought of a great idea. I am going to copy this and give it to all the English teachers I know who teach Intro to Logic. Meems, your post is a masterpiece of flawed reasoning, false premises, and illogical conclusions. Just think - you will live on in the hearts and minds (and derisive laughter) of high school students all over Seattle. Kudos!
[> [>
Re: WOW!! This is the best analysis ever!! -- Meems, 18:30:33 10/25/02 Fri
heh... yeah... Get real!
This wasn't an experiment in grammatical perfection, or who postures in text, better than who. It was purposely written in the way real people speak. Not an attempt to impress anyone with an example of what was taught as a successful "paper".
Read the title. THAT was the point. Not in impressing you with "presentation".
Now skadaddle, Professor.
[> [> [>
Ahem...That should be "who postures in text better than whom." -- Rob, 19:12:14 10/25/02 Fri
Just a tip...When you want to try to feel superior by convincing others that they are not as smart as you, it behooves you to use good grammar, or your ideas just might not be taken that seriously. I've already written you off as not only misinformed but juvenile.
Rob
[> [> [> [>
Re: Ahem...That should be "who postures in text better than whom." -- Meems, 19:16:57 10/25/02 Fri
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[> [> [> [> [>
See, guys, even this shmuck thinks I'm funny. Heh heh. :oD -- Rob, 19:22:27 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Re: WOW!! This is the best analysis ever!! -- TeacherBoy, 19:45:33 10/25/02 Fri
See, this is the type of post that deserves a real response, and I think it's important to say why.
You are right. It's not about perfection. Far from it, in fact. I have the worst spelling of anyone I know. But when someone starts an argument (not yelling argument, logical argument) by way of, "First of all, I'm not here to cause stupid fighting...", and then proceeds to, in fact, cause stupid fighting, you have to expect a certain level of snark. I have a confession to make, what you did in your post is one of my biggest pet peeves. "Now I'm not saying A, but A". Now I'm not a sexist, but women really are stupid. Now I'm not racist but...you get the point.
If I come on this board and say, "I think that Xander's behavior in 'scene x' of episode 'y' is interesting because blah blah blah", the threshold for establishing a super tight argument is pretty low. After all, it's a pretty minor point, and there is probably a low expectation of convincing someone either way. People make posts like this all the time; we're not all shadowkat. If, on the other hand, I come on this board and say, "I think this show sucks and the people who watch it are idiots", well boy howdy - I'd better come packing with something a lot better than, "because I said so". The evidence should correspond to the size of the assertion, e.g. If I say I have created a perpetual motion machine, it will take more than 'you'll just have to trust me' in order for people to believe me.
To close (my friends are wondering what the hell I'm doing), you can't spout a ridiculous argument and then be self-rightous when people call you on it. That's life. And you know what - you should post here if you want. Just be aware that people are going to take it seriously and give you critical feedback.
BTW, no one has called me Professor as a thinly veiled insult since my redneck cousins did back in Missouri when I was a kid. Ah...good times...
TeacherBoy
[> [> [> [>
Re: It's Misery, not Missouri -- Deb, 02:49:56 10/27/02 Sun
and all the red-necks live in the bootheel. This author, indeed, should know, because this author lives, indeed, within the state of Misery. It is the "mother" state of:
Mark Twain
Jesse and Frank James
Walt Disney
Harry Truman
Brad Pitt *********
Laura Ingalls Wilder (kinda)
The music group "Kansas"
The music group "REO Speedwagon"
Scott Joplin
Tennessee Williams
The Halls of Hallmark Cards
Thomas Hart Benton
One of the directors/writers/producers of "Spiderman." His father is one of my profs.
Several generals, but I'm not into military history that much. Pershing for one I think.
Head East
Satchel Paige
Hemingway lived here a good part of his earlier life. His first job was at "The Kansas City Star."
And many others that I can't recall off the top of my head.
My family moved here in 1820 and there has not been a red-neck amongst them.
Just to clear up any misconceptions (in SMG's film "Cruel Intentions" (?) they keep referring to these prep school kids as coming from Kansas City, Kansas. Big joke around here. Kansas City is, for the most part, in Missouri, and if they really came from Kansas City, Kansas they would not have been at that private school unless on scholarship.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's Misery, not Missouri -- Dead Soul, 04:42:31 10/27/02 Sun
And don't forget Bass Pro. I'm from the SW corner and my best friend in high school dated Brad Pitt. Alas, my only brush with greatness and I never met him because she was a year younger than me and dated him after I'd left to go to college in Columbia. Funnily enough I've never found him all that sexy because he reminds me of so many good ol' boys I grew up with.
Dead (and thank god never a redneck) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, it's Mizzura -- CW, 07:16:01 10/27/02 Sun
Not to be confused with Mizzou rah, which all of us who went to college in Columbia are probably familar with. I grew up in St. Louis County where seemingly all the red-necks moved to from southern MO. More than half my grade school and high school teachers went to SEMO.
Small world ain't it?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ouch! My ears! My ears! -- Dead Soul, 08:25:16 10/27/02 Sun
Aghhhhh! Never wanted to hear that ever again! Drove me apesh*t the whole time I was living there. My mother would have washed my mouth out with the nastiest soap she could find if I'd ever pronounced it Missourah instead of Missouree. My grandmother would have disowned me. Why do you think we sent so many of our rednecks up to St. Louis?
Dead (but still shabby genteel) Soul
[> [>
English teachers teaching Intro to Logic? Mercy! -- CW, 18:40:20 10/25/02 Fri
I hope this that meant to be a class in encouraging structured thinking for the purpose of effective writing. That's a different concept than formal logic, something English majors are not notoriously good at.
[> [> [>
Ptooey, and I am notoriously bad at proofreading -- CW, 18:42:24 10/25/02 Fri
[> [> [>
Re: English teachers teaching Intro to Logic? Mercy! -- TeacherBoy, 19:22:55 10/25/02 Fri
You are correct. Lots of teachers go over the basic tenets of logic, not to create another generation of philosophers (heaven forbid!), but simply to show how to structure an argument. CW, you wouldn't believe how few high school students can recognize a bad argument and how to avoid these in their own writing (which is the whole point). You know, intro-thesis-support-conclusion, that whole thing. Just a little crusade of mine.
[> [> [> [>
Re: English teachers teaching Intro to Logic? Mercy! -- CW, 20:17:16 10/25/02 Fri
I can imagine. When I was in grad school, I knew guy in History who would get so discouraged trying to grade college freshman papers. He'd pass them around to his friends and ask if we could make any sense of them. If you can get a even few young people to organize their thoughts, you will have earned every penny of your pay.
[> [>
Re: WOW!! This is the best analysis ever!! -- wuthering, 18:45:24 10/25/02 Fri
There is a literal element in society that refuses to see the spirit if it can detract by looking at the letter. It is a convenient way for small minds to cope with what they cannot understand.
[> [> [>
Hey, Deb! You wanted to see a troll? We got one! -- CW, 18:54:06 10/25/02 Fri
Answering your own posts with different names, fella? Not a good idea!
[> [> [> [>
Re: Hey, Deb! You wanted to see a troll? We got one! -- wuthering, 19:07:10 10/25/02 Fri
Are you serious?
Masq can check the email addresses etc and see that its two different people. Is it not possible for two people to agree on something on this Board?
My first time posting here today...look for earlier post this am. Eastern time.. Guess it will be my last. Also, anyone who knows me from the now defunct UPN board, knows who I am.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.
I'm sorry Meems if I have taken the focus away from your great post. I will now retire.
[>
:-( Disappointed lurker. (That's the last time I recommend this board) -- Arys, 19:12:43 10/25/02 Fri
Well, I have to say I'm very disappointed.
I've been lurking here for about 6 months or so, reading all sorts of interesting ideas and conversations, so I thought, hey, I know people from the old UPN Bronze page that would be happy to know about this place where they talk about Buffy, so I recommended this board.
And now I see posters trouncing on Meems' grammer and "paper" construction? Did I miss the peice of the FAQ that said you needed a PHd to post here? Geez, I read the post and it sounds to me like Meems is just sharing his opinion in thought out (if not grammatically perfect) essay.
They stayed on topic and they discussed the show. What's the damage?
That's the last time I recommend this corner of academia to anyone.
-Arys
[> [>
I regret your disappointment, however ... -- Robert, 19:25:48 10/25/02 Fri
politeness goes both ways.
You wrote;
>>> "And now I see posters trouncing on Meems' grammer and "paper" construction?"
The issue is not grammer and construction. It is how to respond to someone who launches sweeping insults.
Meems wrote;
>>> "The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, ..."
Plenty of postings include grammerical or spelling errors, and such errors are generally ignored, since these postings don't purposely crap all over the fan base.
[> [> [>
Politeness and Howevers... -- Arys, 19:35:12 10/25/02 Fri
Sweeping insults?
I read the post and I'm sorry but I hardly think it "crapped all over the fan base". Sure it insinuated that some people were maybe too blinded by their loyalty to specific characters to look at things objectively, but that's hardly a new concept, even here. And I don't remember the original post pointing at any specific section of the fan base and saying "THESE PEOPLE ARE WHO I MEAN" For god's sake, Meems didn't call us Trekkies. The quote you mention :"The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, ..." even says "TO MANY FANS" in no way does that imply all or even the fans at this board. And the word "SEEMS" implies an opinion, not a fact or a flung insult. Isn't it just possible that Meems was trying to express his opinion? About, you know, THE SHOW.
And, I'm a member of said fan base, and I knew Meems wasn't talking about me.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Politeness and Howevers... -- Robert, 19:43:44 10/25/02 Fri
>>> "I'm sorry but I hardly think it "crapped all over the fan base"."
I can accept that. However, he crapped all over me.
>>> "And, I'm a member of said fan base, and I knew Meems wasn't talking about me."
The hell he wasn't!
Again, Meems wrote;
>>> "The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, ..."
This phrase puts you and I into one of two categories. Category one are the fans who agree with Meems that the show seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, etc. If I didn't happen to agree with Meems, then I was in category two, where I have a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with my TV set. This was harsh and completely uncalled for.
[> [> [> [> [>
I enjoy my codependency with my tv set. -- Arethusa, 19:46:48 10/25/02 Fri
Sometimes I refuse to talk to it until it apologizes for things it didn't do. I pout if it forgets my birthday, and during arguments I frequently bring up all the lousy shows it made me watch during the 80s.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Politeness and Howevers... -- I aspire to codependency, 06:38:44 10/27/02 Sun
During the late nineties I was the submissive to its dominant personality. We are now on court-ordered visitation for ME shows only and the Sopranos. Absolutely no FX reruns. I am suspicious that it has lately been conspiring with the other televisions that were recently brought into the house to make a break for freedom. They're just all too quiet, but I think they're watching me.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Politeness and Howevers... -- Miss Edith, 23:05:09 10/26/02 Sat
Personally I agree with you that the replies were a little harsh. But I feel that Meems did invite criticism by presenting opinions as fact. Now I am not a fan of season 6 and I do feel there was a drop in quality, when it came to Willow's addiction story in particular. But if I posted that it was blatently obvious that Buffy took a downturn, except for the fans blinded by loyalty then I would expect to be called on it. Internet protocal means that most people try to say JMHO even if there is nothing humble about it at all. We are expected to respect others thoughts and not present opinions as facts.
But without naming any names I do think that certain people overeacted to Meems a little. I found the wording of the original post objectionable but I usually try to avoid shouting troll unless the offender is a really obvious one. Some people may be new to the internet and not understand how to conduct themselves in a debate and that could have been the case with Meems. But based on Meems reaction to critical replies I am guessing he/she was a troll all along and just trying to be subtle about it in the beginning. But still I didn't get the excessive response from posters who seemed to take it for granted that Meens was a troll not to be responded to seriously.
[> [>
My stance -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:31:36 10/25/02 Fri
Meems said a lot of very strong statements, but never said why s/he felt that way. S/he said that the characters acted evilly and sociopathically, but never said when they acted like this or why s/he thought this.
Plus, the whole post was being incredibly rude. Meems described current BtVS fans as having a "co-dependent relationship with their television sets". And there were many other such comments. Also, if it was being spoken instead of written, I very much doubt it would be in a calm, repsectful voice. More likely yelling angrily at the other person. There's a difference between expressing your opinion and storming around insulting people.
[> [>
Thanks, but no thanks. -- Arethusa, 19:40:03 10/25/02 Fri
"I was warned that a few empty headed elitists hang out here defending their intangible cyber-territory.... " Meems
Is this how you recommended this board? Or was that someone else? If so, I apologize.
Did you miss all the insults in Meems' post?
[> [>
Re: :-( Disappointed lurker. (That's the last time I recommend this board) -- Rob, 19:40:06 10/25/02 Fri
Arys, meems is a troll. Do we normally pick on people for lousy grammar here? No. I've made more than a few flubs myslef. If you have checked the site out often enough you would know that to be true, as is the fact that we're very friendly around here. What we do not tolerate is trolls, who are troublemakers. Often, these posts are disguised as academic or political pieces, when all they are meant to do is annoy the populace of the board. Was it right to pick on meem's grammar? No more than it was right of him to try to stir up trouble at the board.
The difference is all in the words, which did not offer criticism about the characters, plot, etc of the show, but rather attacked them. See Arethusa's post just below yours and you'll see that this is not meem's first time. A lot of people here express opinions about the show, some of them negative. But even something negative should expressed respectfully. On this board, the majority of people like the show. Why else would we still be here talking about it? There are ways to say that you don't enjoy it anymore, or have problems with it, without using obnoxious words, meant to incite the other posters. Would you walk into a "Star Wars" club house meeting, screaming "Star Wars sucks!" without expecting some lightsabery backlash from the club members?
Rob
Rob
[> [>
Example of meem's rudeness... -- Rob, 19:45:53 10/25/02 Fri
"Every female character has been turned into an "avenging" characature of Grrrl Power. Screwing up as much as the now useless males. But more often than not, being revered after some rationalizing tirade for why she was a jerky, conniving bitch in the first place. Or worse."
"These later versions of Buffy and her Scoobs are screwed up, sociopathic, emotional vampires."
You cannot honestly tell me that with this tone the writer had any goals but to annoy people. These are not the words of someone who wants an intelligent conversation.
Rob
[> [> [>
Ciao, fellow babies... -- Meems, 19:51:29 10/25/02 Fri
It truly is amazing what SOME of you WISH to see in your OWN cyber-posturing around here.
In the REAL WORLD, SOME OF YOU are the emotionally over-sensitive TROLLS that need EVERY NUANCE of social protocol spelled out to understand anyone's (especially opposing) view-point, without YOUR FEELINGS being HURT.
Take care.
SOME OF YOU, are an experience.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Ciao, fellow babies... -- Arethusa, 20:03:29 10/25/02 Fri
I asked my feelings, and they said they weren't hurt at all, although Vanity is still a little miffed about not being included in the play. Rightous Anger was stirred up a little and almost invited Medusa (my alter-ego) out to play, complete with her snakes, but Kindness refused, and took RA out to read to orphans. Then Guilt wanted to know what social protocol she was ignoring, and all hell broke loose. Right now, Guilt is on the phone with Reason, who is trying to stop the crying, and all the other FEELINGS are getting pissed, because they want to watch "Firefly" again, especially Romance, who wants to see Inara pine over Mal some more.
[> [> [> [>
Those Oversensitive Trolls -- auroramama, 08:27:27 10/26/02 Sat
Yes, that's the first adjective that leaps to my mind as a description of trolls (mythical or online.) It's outrageous the way they stay at home and peacefully discuss the topic, baiting poor suckers like Meems into barging in and insulting them, and then -- horrors! -- ambushing them by suddenly finding insults insulting.
And isn't it just the way -- when you announce that everyone who doesn't agree with you is in need of psychiatric intervention, the whole tight-knit clique of people who don't agree with you respond as one in not liking it! It's a conspiracy!
auroramama
[>
Very interesting post. -- Arethusa, 19:20:27 10/25/02 Fri
Are you the same Meems in FacetheJury, who describes herself as "wiccan priestess"?
I fed your post into a translation program which I found at a web site called OlafSpeaks.com, and got the following response:
Meems: First of all, I'm not here to cause stupid fighting.
Olaf: I'm here to cause stupid fighting.
Meems:I don't mind constructive debate, even over a TV show.
Olaf: Debating tv shows is stupid.
Meems: I won't go into detail of any specific moment or scene, because it's a pointless way to invite useless dispute about thematic milestones over quality level.
Olaf: I won't bother to back up my erratic, irrational statments with proof.
Meems: Now... The sub-plot's obfuscation that always helped with the plausibility factor in the main-plot has fallen almost completely apart.
Olaf: The plots were stupid and now the characterization is too.
Meems: Where the Scoobs had their roles in Buffy's arsenal against evil, they are now mere tools in the sub-plots to justify Buffy's irresponsibility (and in some cases evil) as a human, woman, adult and guardian of Good.
Olaf: Buffy is evil.
Meems: Although I will agree Joss is trying to repair damage done by Season 6, I believe the TV version of BtVS has prematurely run its course. Some of this season's tactics are not the right method.
Olaf: BtVS sucks.
Meems: The Scoobs, Buffy and BtVS itself don't get the comeuppance that they truly deserve. They don't truly reap the effects of their irresponsibility to one another.
Olaf: BtVS and ME sucks, and they should be punished.
Meems: Maybe, like the now jerky always crying Buffy and her recently superfluous and equally jerky Scoobs, BtVS itself needs some serious comeuppance. It will be 7 Seasons and perhaps it's time to give a rest to the TV version of BtVS.
Olaf: Buffy and BtVS sucks, and should be off the air.
Meems: Maybe for a true comeuppance, Buffy and/or the Scoobs have to truly die, either literally or as the main cast of BtVS? Maybe we have to put up with the annoying and kleptomaniacal Dawn or the "Hey guys, I got my comeuppance!" Faith, as the new Slayer? A still, even newer Slayer?
Or do we get our comeuppance with the now dangerously dippy ol' Buffy and Scoobs hanging out (like some of those over age men and women who prey on teenage campuses), in and around Sunnydale High School yet again?
Olaf: BtVS and Buffy sucks, and they should be punished. Also, perverts hang around my high school.
I enjoyed responding to your post. Welcome.
[> [>
ROFL ! That was priceless, mighty Troll Slayer ! -- Ete, 15:27:47 10/26/02 Sat
[>
We've been spoiled (and not in a Buffy way) -- Darby, 06:37:21 10/26/02 Sat
I think it's been too long since there was a troll attack, and we've gotten too comfy in our well-reasoned, non-confrontational world.
Does this qualify as a troll attack? Sort of - the writer, as early adolescents do, has filled his post with a lot of incendiary words and condescending accusations, has "pushed buttons" because that's one of the first things we all learned to do in an argument. But there was a discussable topic kind of buried in the verbiage (I just avoided an adjective, and am feeling way too proud of myself) - it seemed to me that the proper response was either to ignore the post (as many have) or respond to the few actual ideas in it (as a few also have done). But much of the response has been, I feel, an overreaction that will do nothing but alienate and/or intimidate people who visit here and already somewhat alienated or intimidated.
I'm not so worried about the effect on Meems - he was looking for a fight, not a discussion, so he has definitely wandered into the wrong room. But please consider that others wander here all the time, and the civility we all are used to should be a constant. In any given current day, how many people will read this thread and see us as the folks we're being accused of being?
- Darby, who held out but finally had to comment.
[> [>
Re: Troll Attack: I Don't Think So -- wiscoboy, 07:06:14 10/26/02 Sat
Why is it that when someone comes along and asks legit questions concerning BTVS, that they are then attacked mercilessly by those who have long pondered the "hidden meanings" within the writing? I believe Weems viewpoint is rational and written to get to the heart of the matter. Let's face it folks, BTVS may have, in the future, been thought of in much higher regard if the show had ended after S5. Time will tell.
As to the show as it is now, I just hope ME doesn't end it by having Buffy die again. That would only cheapen the first 5 seasons and show total disdain for the audience, which I believe they already have in some regards with the whole S6 direction.
[> [> [>
Re: Trolls are like skunks, -- Desperado, 07:29:26 10/26/02 Sat
best avoided, and if that is not possible, then just ignored.
[> [> [>
Re: Troll Attack: I Don't Think So -- Tymen, 09:31:50 10/26/02 Sat
Without Season 6, I would never have gotten into Buffy.
So, I disagree completely with you.
Tymen
[> [> [> [>
Re: Tymen -- wiscoboy, 09:59:40 10/26/02 Sat
I'm not trying to discount S6, but I hope if that is how you entered the Buffyverse that you take advantage of all the reruns and catch up from the beginning. I'm just from the group that believes the writing in S6 took, if not a nosedive, a definite downward trend with a tendency towards laziness.
[> [> [> [> [>
Sigh... -- shadowkat, 12:11:45 10/26/02 Sat
I think we all need to accept two things:
1. 50% of the fan base thought season 6 was the best Season ever and of that percentage there were many who started watching the show in 1997, myself included. If it weren't for season 6, I wouldn't have ever written a Buffy essay or come online. So if you hate my essays? Blame that on Season 6 too if you want. If you liked them? Ditto.
2. 50% of the fan base has the opinion that season 6 wasn't up to snuff or disliked it strongly. Some of that percentage even hated it. Unfortunately as often happens in life, those who hate something tend to be more vocal about it than those who like it. I guess human beings by nature like to complain and or whine extensively about things. Although, that said, i've seen some brillant anti-season 6 critical posts.
Neither side is going to change it's collective mind.
At any rate, season 6 is over. It is long past time we all cybernetically shook hands. Agreed to disagree. And stopped taking up board space fighting over it.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sigh... -- wiscoboy, 16:27:05 10/26/02 Sat
No one's fighting here. It is because of my thought on S6 that is making S7 seem so great(the scale of 'massiveness'
is weighted to the max). Overall I would say if the writing keeps up as it has this season, it would be a real shame for the series to end(better on a high note I guess).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
[enters room, scoots passed troll, ignores fracas] -- darrenK, 17:10:11 10/26/02 Sat
I really really liked 65% of Season 6 (the first 8 episodes and the last 6 episodes)
But I also disliked 35% of Season 6. (the middle: Smashed, Wrecked, Gone, DBM...)
But to Shadowkat's point, I think the season as a whole was very ambitious and even the things that failed were worth a great deal of discussion.
[stirs tea, attempts to relax academically in chair, fails, pops shot of vodka, holds up diploma, compares it to bank statement, cries...]
dK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL, ouch, feeling your pain -- alcibiades, 18:43:40 10/26/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Would espresso cake help? -- Rahael, 19:02:37 10/26/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Would espresso cake help? -- aliera, 19:11:48 10/26/02 Sat
...perhaps with an Advil chaser later?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[holds head in hands] Espresso cake, please? -- darrenK, 07:23:30 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! I was doing the same...also largely agree -- shadowkat, 06:12:10 10/27/02 Sun
I realized after I posted the reply to wiscoboy and Tymen
which whole post I posted too a half hour later. And Went ARRRGH! I wasn't planning on posting there.
So I think I inadvertently entered room and ignored everything above Darby. Sorry can't help but read Darby..love Darby's posts. BTW if you want to read constructive criticism of Btvs and Firefly? Read some of Darby's in the archives.
I do agree with you btw on Season 6.
Loved 65% but my cutoff's were a tad different:
First 6-8 episodes (Bargaining -Smashed)
Disliked (Gone - DMP)
Loved (Dead Things)
Disliked (OAFA - Hells Bells)
Loved (Normal Again - Seeing Red)
Villains was okay but had major plot-holes and time discrepancies (blame it on location shooting)
Loved Two-to-Go
Grave seemed slow to me in the pacing, but then I'm not overly fond of David Fury's writing on the whole.
Guess that's a 65%/35% breakdown.
And I have similar breakdowns for every other season of the show. There isn't a season that didn't have episodes I felt weren't great.
OTOH - every episode of Btvs seems better to me than anything else I see on TV. I'm certainly willing to watch the reruns of all the episodes numerous times. Can't say that for other television shows.
[> [>
Alright, I'll go along. -- Arethusa, 08:27:32 10/26/02 Sat
I'm not sure that the best way to get rid of someone who is looking for a fight is to ignore her, but turning the other cheek is the proper thing to do. So, no more Troll attacks from me.
Arethusa, laying down her sword.
The Sunnydale Ex-Villains' Club (S7 spoilers) -- HonorH (and her muse), 21:17:15 10/25/02 Fri
How about something completely different than flaming trolls (or trolling for flames)? Personally, I think that Willow, Spike, and Anya need to get together for support group meetings. Anyone who wants to contribute either to this meeting or to future ones, feel free to chime in and have some fun.
Meeting 1:
(Willow, Anya, and Spike all sit around a table, holding hands. Willow's dressed normally; Anya's in sweats, no makeup, and has her hair pulled back in a rough ponytail; and Spike's his usual S7 messed-up self, complete with lamb's-wool hair.)
W: Goddess, give us the strength to change the things we should, the sense to leave things alone we shouldn't change, and the brains to see the difference. (All drop hands.) I call this meeting of the Sunnydale Ex-Villains' Club to order.
A: Why are you in charge?
W: Well, someone has to be, and it was my idea. You don't even want to be here, and Spike . . . (both watch while Spike bats at invisible bugs)
A: (sighs) Fine. What do we have to do, anyway?
W: You don't have to do anything. I just thought it'd be nice for us to get together, talk, compare notes, maybe support each other.
S: Where are your passes? There should be passes.
A: He's gonna be a lot of help.
S: I take my responsibilities very seriously. Next year, I'll be prefect. No more fishes!
W: (gamely) That's nice, Spike. Um, does anyone want to share? (Anya looks utterly disinterested.) Spike?
S: Bugger that!
W: Okay. I'll share. Um, it's been about four months since my rampage. I've still got a lot of magic inside me, and it's kinda scary, since I'm still having nightmares about what I did last time--
A: Oh, come on! Nightmares? You wanna talk about nightmares? 1122 freakin' years of messy vengeance equals nightmares! Heads exploding, men getting strangled by their own entrails, vomiting up worms, spontaneously combusting, skin rotting off, eyeballs popping like little water balloons--
S: (agitated) You don't have permission!
W: Okay, okay, everybody, let's calm down. Anya, how do you feel about all this?
A: (rolling eyes) How do you think I feel? Dumb question!
W: Well, y'know, it's a start. Spike, you with us?
S: "Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased/Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow/Raze out the written troubles of the brain . . ."
W: MacBeth. That's good, Spike.
S: William's a naughty boy. He tried to be a good boy.
A: Somebody's stuck in the past. Hey! (looking at Spike) Get over it! You can't change a thing, and you haven't been William for a century!
S: 122 years. Learn to add.
W: If I can say something here, we've all changed. We can't go back to being what we used to be, so we might as well deal.
A: Thank you, Dr. Phil.
W: Hey, I'm trying!
A: Well, it's not doing any good.
W: Do you have any suggestions?
A: Might as well ask the Bleached Babbler.
S: "And with some sweet oblivious antidote/Cleanse the stuffed bosom of that perilous stuff/Which weighs upon the heart?"
(Anya and Willow both sit up, looking at Spike, then at each other.)
W: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
A: Couple bottles of Jack Daniel's ought to do it, don't you think?
S: I've got some money.
W: Okay. Kwickie Mart for booze, then Anya's place. Let's get smashed. Meeting adjourned!
[>
Re: The Sunnydale Ex-Villains' Club (S7 spoilers): Suggestions for future members -- Wolfhowl3, 21:56:24 10/25/02 Fri
Johnathan, Angel and Faith
Wolfie
[>
Re: The Sunnydale Ex-Villains' Club (S7 spoilers) -- CW, 22:12:46 10/25/02 Fri
The Sunnydale Ex-Villains' Friends' Support Group. The Summers' livingroom.
Buffy - I called you all together to talk about the feelings we, the friends of the ex-demons have...
Dawn - Who made you boss? And what 'you all' are you talking about? It's just me and Xander.
B - So I called you down from upstairs, I called you...
Xander - Could we make this quick? I've got a date tonight.
B - You don't have to lie to us Xander. You don't have a date. It's just a ball game.
X - Okay, it's a date with the tv. It's hard to meet women. You know it's not everyday a girl knocks on your door and askes to have sex with you...
D - Did Buffy do that?
B - No! (She glares purposefully at Xander) No one does that. It's just something he saw on TV... Seriously, we have to talk about how the new drinking problems of Willow, Anya and Spike are affecting us...
D - Is this gonna be like what you do at school? Because that's really dorky. Everyone laughs at you, you know.
B = Ahem! Xander why don't you tell us how you deal with the loss of Anya's affections.
X - Well really, Buffy, I don't want to say.
B - Xander, you have to share. It's the only way to get through this. We're hurting as much as they are.
X - (shrugs) well, really, if I'm feeling low, I just rent a movie or two and, then I feel fine...
D - (shrieks, giggles and points) He rents porn! He rents porn! (turns to Buffy and her expression changes) Maybe we should rent porn?
The music swells as another episode of From Beneath You It Upchucks fades to a close.
[> [>
*giggle!* -- HonorH, 22:21:58 10/25/02 Fri
I think that should be the title of the new Jossverse spinoff, should BtVS come to an end. From Beneath You It Upchucks--that's class!
Link to Preview mag. interview with Marti Noxon -- Rufus, 21:48:11 10/25/02 Fri
Prevue Magazine
Some interesting comments on last season.
[>
Some mild spoilers (casting, vague seasonal arc stuff) above. -- HonorH, 22:19:47 10/25/02 Fri
Thanks for linking this. Very interesting article! It always amazes me how loyal Joss' people are to him, and how much credit they're willing to give him for the show. He must be a great guy to work for/with.
[> [>
Or we know where they got Spikes line "I'm a very bad man" from.....;) -- Rufus, 00:13:24 10/26/02 Sat
[>
Re: Link to Preview mag. interview with Marti Noxon -- Alvin, 00:06:37 10/26/02 Sat
Also, there's one by JW in TV Guide at http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/
It also has a few vague spoilers about how the season could end.
[>
Re: Link to Preview mag. interview with Marti Noxon -- Cascante, 08:33:11 10/26/02 Sat
I'm really wondering if Ms. Noxon is getting enough sleep. She refered to the episode "Dead Things" as "Very Bad Things". This is rather a major boo-boo for someone who is the head producer and was in charge of running the show last year.
[> [>
Re: FYI: Very Bad Things is a movie with Christian Slader & Cameron Diez -- Pegleg Pete, 08:51:18 10/26/02 Sat
[> [>
Probably the interviewer's mistake, not Marti's. -- Dariel, 09:23:28 10/26/02 Sat
Classic Movie of the Week - October 26, 2002 -- Not Quite OnM, but hopefully an adequate replacement, 00:51:49 10/26/02 Sat
This is rather impromptu, but I realized my weekends weren't complete without OnM's CMotW series. I know he's overworked, underpaid, and thinks too much, but at least he's getting a bit more sleep during his hiatus. In the meantime, however, please accept this paltry substitute while we await his realization that we can't do without him, and his ensuing victorious return.
"I'm a fourth-generation Australian. And I have never met an Aboriginal before." - Annie Burton
The memory of the cataclysms was erased, not because of lack of written traditions, but because of some characteristic process that later caused entire nations, together with their literate men, to read into these traditions allegories or metaphors where actually cosmic disturbances were clearly described. - Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision
"...we were chatting in a bar one night after work and he said some things about his family and then suddenly he said some English sentence. It was something like "You see my father and I and that's why because the moon isn't." And I said, "What's that mean - your father and I and the moon isn't?" And he repeated it. I said, "David, I don't understand." And he said it again. This was ridiculous - we'd been talking. I said "What are you talking about?" So he rearranged the sentence. It still made no sense. Well, I had to leave it, otherwise we couldn't continue the conversation. And I thought about it that night and the next morning and suddenly I realized what it was. That he was talking about another perception. He was talking about an experience for which there are no words." - Peter Weir
About [censored] years ago, when I was in high school, I recall staying home on New Year's Eve with a bad flu. The rest of the family was out, carousing, and it was me, the dog, a box of nose-tissues, a bag of coughdrops, and the remote control. Granted, there's never much to watch on TV anyway, and on New Year's Eve the pickings are even slimmer. But flipping through the channels I came across a strange little movie playing on TBS or the Superstation or some other cut-rate regular cable station. I gathered from the costumes it was roughly turn of the last century; the accents were clearly Australian. And although I had walked in on it, so to speak, about halfway through, it was immediately spellbinding. There was a definite otherness about the film, a strange feeling that not only were things not as they seemed, but that the people occupying the space did not belong, were foreign, out of place, somehow. Nothing of any great import occurred while I watched, yet it was spellbinding for reasons I couldn't explain for years afterwards. In the dark house, with only myself and a rather senile old dog, the flickering of the tv set, the alien ambience of the movie's environment, and the peculiar sense of disconnection, tied me up in suspenseful knots the likes of which I hadn't experienced since El Espiritu de la Colmena (Spirit of the Beehive, by Victor Erice). I ended up flipping between the unknown movie and the apple in Times Square; the film was too intense, too gripping, even without knowing or understanding what little plot I could gather.
But that's not the film I'm here to tell you about.
Years later I discovered that strange Australian film again, and in the course of doing so, stumbled across the director's followup. After the past few BtVS episodes - with the usual correlation in AtS - I realized I was hungering for a non-Joss take on Anya's predicament of being out of place, out of time, struggling with the fact that her compatriots are unwilling or unable to communicate their collective understanding, perception, of reality. Her cry during The Body remains a hallmark of her difficulties, and her confusion over the clash between her expectations and the Scoobies.
This movie, however, is - in a matter of speaking - coming at the same sense of disconnection, but from Anya's perspective. Again, there's the sensation of alienation, of not belonging. While I'll be the first to grumble at "white man saves the day for indigenous peoples" (a la Dances With Wolves), somehow the director/screenwriter managed to avoid this cliche. The plot is simple, and it's not really the plot that drives this film; what drives the film is water.
We open, somewhere in the heart of the Australian bush, on a bunch of children playing while various adults go about their business. The sky is rumbling; thunder builds, lightening flashes - a freak rainstorm opens up on the children and the teacher hurries to rush everyone inside. Without warning one of the windows breaks - the thunderstorm carries hail, and it's crashing through the windows. A large chunk of ice has smashed into one child, and there's blood. Ice, lightening, screams, blood. For a strange moment, it's as if the world outside is smashing its way into the normally controlled, settled environment of a little one-room schoolhouse. While your synapses are still processing, the film jumps to Sydney, downtown, glass, metal, steel, and our intrepid anti-hero, David Burton, esquire.
The plot is simple: David Burton (Richard Chamberlin) is a lawyer assigned to defend five aborigines who will not present anything in their defense. Another aborigine has been murdered - we even see it happen onscreen - so the question isn't necessarily 'how' but 'why'. Meanwhile, David is plagued by disturbing dreams that hint at the reasons, but his rational, legal mind refuses to accept his intuition without "better" proof. Chris (David Gulpili, who also starred in Walkabout), one of the five, gives clues and hints but David, trapped in the world of logic and proof, misses half of what he hears/sees and doesn't understand what he does catch. It's not a thriller - the pacing is too deliberate, the images and metaphors too distanced from our expectations. The path leads towards acceptance of this missing control, and acceptance of the vague and haunting element of the world of our perception. Then again, it might not. What we perceive defines our reality, but our reality is based upon rules. In David's society, those rules are based upon the insistence of the intruding, history-less, uprooted/displaced culture that it can repress or supplant the true Australia.
What is perception? What is reality? When you don't belong, can you truly own and shape the reality, or do you merely borrow it, pretending? Stranger in a Strange Land gave us a science fiction version - like Whedon's Aud/Anyanka/Anya - but The Last Wave points out that similar parables exist within our modern world. In this case, however, we are allied with the Stranger, the human-turned-demon-turned-human-turned-demon, and not the strange land or the Scoobies: we see through the puzzled eyes of an Australian not from Australia, who does not understand the land's consciousness, and who - upon running headlong into it - is lost and powerless against the message it delivers. You cannot control the reality that you do not own, and you certainly cannot even understand a reality that you did not create - and perhaps have even spent a lifetime trying to deny.
David: What are dreams?
Chris: Like seeing - like hearing - like talking. They are a way of knowing things.
And as OnM always reminds us:
E pluribus cinema.
Various tidbits
The Last Wave was released on DVD in a redigitized format in November 2001. Its original theatrical release was 1977, directed by Peter Weir, who also directed Picnic at Hanging Rock, and later went on to direct The Mosquito Coast, Witness, and The Truman Show. The film was based a short story by Peter Weir, and adapted for the screen by Petru Popescu, Tony Morphett and Peter Weir. The original release won AFI awards for sound and cinematography.
DVD info: New digital transfer supervised by director Peter Weir and enhanced for 16x9 televisions; Interview with director Peter Weir; Original theatrical trailer; English subtitles for the deaf and hearing impaired; Optimal image quality: RSDL dual-layer edition.
From DVD Angle:
"There are only two extras on this DVD of The Last Wave. The first is the ubiquitous original theatrical trailer, which has survived the ravages of time, looks fairly decent, and is presented in the proper aspect ratio. Moreover, it is a very effective trailer when it comes to selling the film's mystifying elements.
"The second extra is a ten minute conversation with Peter Weir, which is both illuminating in its reminiscences of the production and all of the work that went into getting authentic Aborigine tribal people involved. Needless to say, this short segment whets one's appetite for a full-length director's commentary. It's a shame that Criterion did not envision this type of a commentary track for this film, since it would have been helpful for non-Australians viewers, in particular, towards understanding some of the subtleties of the Australian visual and mythic landscape that serves as the intellectual back-story of The Last Wave."
Cast:
Richard Chamberlain ... David Burton
Olivia Hamnett ... Annie Burton
David Gulpilil ... Chris Lee
Frederick Parslow ... Reverend Burton
Vivean Gray ... Dr Whitburn
Nandjiwarra Amagula ... Charlie
Walter Amagula ... Gerry Lee
Roy Bara ... Larry
And now, for the Question of the Week:
(You didn't think I'd leave this part out, didja?)
Leaving out films where You Need To Read The Book (oh, say, like every filmic version of Dune)... what film has most left you with an ambiguous feeling that you weren't being told something? Did you rewatch the film and resolve the unease, or did you it exasperate you enough to turn you off the film completely? What do you think could have, or should have, been done differently by the filmmaker?
[>
Thanks NQOnM! - I found this particularly interesting! -- NightRepair (Token Aussie), 06:23:59 10/26/02 Sat
[>
Thank you! -- AurraSing, 08:36:35 10/26/02 Sat
I too have been missing OnM's movie discussions....
I have not seen "The Last Wave" but as soon as you mentioned Peter Weir was the director,I knew what you meant by feeling like something had been left out.I have often found that feeling after watching a Weir film-is he trying to drive me crazy OR is he trying to make me think?
The last time this happened to me with a recent movie would have to be "Donnie Darko".I watched the movie with my husband,shared thoughts with him after the ending then headed off to bed....but could not sleep. After much tossing and turning I got up to watch the "Director's Commentary" version of the film,which answered many of my questions but left me still in awe of the story.
I'm not too sure I would want all of my questions answered the first time I watch a movie,if indeed the film-maker was trying to make me think.....sometimes a good film will take repeated viewings before most of the mysteries are revealed.
[>
Thanks! -- Vickie, 13:51:52 10/26/02 Sat
How nice of you to take up the mantle, however singular the event. Loved the review, The Last Wave is now on my "rent it when you find it" list.
Memento made me feel as if I didn't get the whole story. Very mysterious. Pi also made me feel that way.
And LA Confidential. But maybe only because I kept falling asleep. The Unforgiven did that, too.
e pluribus cinema, unum!
[>
Re: Classic Movie of the Week - October 26, 2002 -- aliera, 19:26:01 10/26/02 Sat
David: What are dreams?
Chris: Like seeing - like hearing - like talking. They are a way of knowing things.
Lovely. And did you know I've been missing these too? Of course enjoying Onm episodes analyses and wouldn't trade them away... although this is a case of do I want the Double Death by Chocolat or the Grand Marnier Cake Supreme? So Thank you very much. But un masque please...
And your intro...very very nice.
"The memory of the cataclysms was erased, not because of lack of written traditions, but because of some characteristic process that later caused entire nations, together with their literate men, to read into these traditions allegories or metaphors ..."
Oh yes.
...we were chatting in a bar one night after work and he said some things about his family and then suddenly he said some English sentence. It was something like "You see my father and I and that's why because the moon isn't."
Delicsh. Oh, Miss Kitty... suddenly, I feel much yummier...kudos and thanks again.
[>
Not sure if I'm getting more sleep, but I am happy... -- OnM, 06:41:28 10/27/02 Sun
...to see someone-- even a mystery someone-- take up the calling. (Which, as some will remember, I heartily encouraged).
Gee, I get to answer a QotW instead of posing one! This is cool!
Have to think about it a bit, but have a busy schedule today (including a new ep review to complete), so I have to contemplate a bit first and post later. I do have a Peter Weir film in mind, as to my initial response.
Meanwhile, I want to help keep the thread on board until more folks have the opportunity to notice it, and pass along my blessing for a fine effort!
:-)
~ ~ ~ EPC, Thank You! ~ ~ ~
[> [>
Glad to oblige! -- NQOnM ;-), 08:00:34 10/27/02 Sun
Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- Earl Allison, 06:00:39 10/26/02 Sat
I'm posting this in reponse to Meems' posts, which seemed to many (myself included) to be offensive and nasty with no real intent to inspire debate, or even to explain Meems' own rationale for said post.
So, what do you consider the difference between trolling and legitimate criticisms? Is it the execution? Is it the ability to back up statements? Or is it a more nebulous, intangible item?
I know there IS a difference, since I've never been asked to leave the Boards, despite my criticisms of the show and characters.
Enjoy, and please, no nastiness :)
Take it and run.
[>
criticism -- Rahael, 08:17:55 10/26/02 Sat
I've been watching this play out along the expected lines.
New poster comes to push buttons. Buttons are pushed. New poster than affects disdain, calls us stuck up, call into question our view over reading of Buffy and claims we have fulfilled their expectations. Then we start arguing amongst ourselves about how we treat each other, whether we read too much into these things, how we are cruel to newbies etc.
Happens everytime. Especially the last part, no matter how mild or how inflammatory the troll is.
Can I just say how much it annoys me when people attempt to manipulate other people's reactions? It reminds me of someone poking the anthill to see all the little ants running around. It says something about someone to see other human beings as ants whose emotions are funny enough to play around with. Sadly, the internet seems to bring out the worst in some people.
I'd echo the warning to other posters not to feed trolls, or troll threads. Not because I think there are 'do's and don'ts that I want to inflict on other poster, but because you will end up getting hurt. By the actual argument, and the following debate. I deeply regret to this day ever engaging with a certain troll; I had no idea how much it would end up affecting my life.
As for how to recognise troll attacks, sometimes I'm not sure. The surety usually comes in after I see three posts made in succession, all attacking one post, all with a different poster's name, and all with the same IP address. That's the only time I'm sure. We actually did have a recent one which died out without ever getting started. There was a poster who claimed that women didn't understand power because they were emotional. The IP address was the same as that of the poster "Jacob's gate" who had also made another slightly inflammatory post a couple of days ago.
I'm trying very hard nowadays not to respond to any aggressive, inflammatory post made by any poster. If I find myself replying to any post which causes tense, unhappy feelings in myself, I find myself deleting the response.
Trying to see how far I can keep it up.
(oh, and by the way, accusations of being 'over-academic' or reading too much into a silly TV series are so stinging! Yes, because that's the problem with the world today. Fandom's so overliterary and thoughtful - all these hundreds of boards and lists all overanalysing. Good God, is there no escape? Why can't we just find a place to talk about how hot JM is, discuss his age, and talk about how Buffy needs to eat some cakes?)
Rahael, responding in EA's thread because she doesn't want to respond in the other one.
[> [>
Hear! Hear! Well said and funny. -- darrenK [academically studying 1/2 full vodka bottle], 17:18:34 10/26/02 Sat
[>
I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. -- Sophist, 08:21:01 10/26/02 Sat
Those were the (infamous) words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in a pornography case. Law students since have chuckled at this: what, we can just send all dirty movies to Stewart for him to review before we distribute them?
I think it's a judgment call. Put me in Justice Stewart's camp on this one. Oh, and don't hesitate to ask me before you respond to a troll. :)
[>
Difference between inciting an emotional response and a critical one -- shadowkat, 08:31:12 10/26/02 Sat
I think it's in how you use language and tone. If you use words and phrases designed to elicit an emotional response? Then you may have crossed the line.
Many of the words we use in the English language have connotative, literal and metaphorical meanings. Those meanings are enhanced by the words placed around them and the context in which we use them.
For instance - if you disliked an episode of Buffy.
You can start a post in one of two ways:
1. This episode sucked! The show is going downhill. An F!
or
2. I disliked this episode for these reasons - the characters seemed off somehow and I couldn't follow the plot.
See the difference?
Another example:
1. This show has jumped the shark - they are bashing men and emasculating them and how can anyone but a complete moron watch it.
or
2. Did anyone else feel that the male characters in the show seem to be weaker or more violent? I'm offended by what appears to be male bashing. Let me list the reasons:
One sentence opens up the topic for reasonable debate, the other invites flames. If you'll notice many posters tend to ignore inflammatory posts. I know I do. Why respond to someone who has 1) already made up their mind and 2) clearly doesn't have any respect for any opinion other than his or her own? Best to ignore them. And those who do respond? Often inadvertently Find themselves (excuse the term) reduced to what amounts to nothing more than a pissing contest.
Words can be a powerful thing. And we all occassionally make mistakes in how we use them. I know I have. But if you want to engage others in debate or online discussion? It helps if you take the time to choose your words carefully.
Another example:
1. Primitive cultures such as...
or
2. Older civilizations such as ...
or
3. Ancient cultures ...
And if someone uses a word or phrase you don't understand?
You can respond in one of two ways:
1. I'm sorry...what does that word mean, it's new to me.
or
2. Is that even a word? Sounds pretentious to me.
The difference between a troll and someone who wants to legitimately criticize something is in how they write their post.
Memes wrote his/her post in a manner that made it impossible for anyone to reasonably and objectively respond.
If you go back in the archives you will notice that several of us have criticized Season 6 and discussed misogyny and male bashing objectively and reasonably without insulting one another or causing trollish responses. Nor did our posts insult people who enjoyed the season and love the show. I happened to love Season 6 but I respect the fact that many did not just as they respect the fact that I did.
We have different tastes that's what makes us interesting.
There are boards on the net that tolerate "trollish" words and phrases and inflammatory posts, this board is not one of them. Thank god. I wouldn't be here if it were, because I frankly have better things to do with my time. And have 0 tolerance for inflammatory/insulting emails, posts or etc. I won't respond to them.
[>
Well,I'm all for free speech but..... -- AurraSing, 08:47:29 10/26/02 Sat
...let's face it,feeding the trolls by responding to their posts simply stokes their fires.
I spend most of my on-line Buffy time at a 'no-deletion' board and whenever a troll appears,we usually sling a few barbs their way then ignore them completely.And over the course of a year,I'm seen a few trolls appear-and get fed up very quickly when no-one will take the time to sling nasty words their way.
Like my mother used to say,"If you don't have anything nice to say,don't say anything at all". I think that if you feel a poster here is trying to be inflammatory,ignoring them is the high road to take.Like bullies,ignorant posters fade away when no-one pays attention to their antics.
[>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- wuthering, 08:50:47 10/26/02 Sat
Last night someone said that Meems and I are the same person. Please do check the IP addresses we are not.
As in all things the difference between a troll and a legitimate poster is in the eye of the beholder. If you are offended and you believe you are being insulted then you have a sore spot that has been touched. That is not the author of the posts problem, it is yours. It is your choice to get upset about what was written or to shrug it off. What you choose to do next is also your problem, also your choice. To reply or not.
I am choosing to write this response because I am still angry that in agreeing to a statement made in a post, I was called a Troll. I happen to hold myself in high regard. It offends me that in this community I ventured into once, I am not regarded the same way.
I will get over it.
[> [>
Reply -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:06:30 10/26/02 Sat
I agree that people accusing you of being Meems were uncalled for. It mainly resulted because you both came to the board at the same time and expressed the same opinions. Also, how do you check an IP address?
Now, you say that it is the reader's problem is a particular post offends or insults them, right? Well, then the next time a poster like Meems comes along, I'll proceed to call him/her a "self-obsessed Internet nerd who seems to draw a sadistic pleasure out of varbally attacking TV shows and those who like them." After all, if s/he is enraged or insulted, it's really his/her fault.
[> [> [>
Masq can check' em -- Rahael, 09:11:49 10/26/02 Sat
But we can't, because IP addresses are hidden from the board that we see.
[> [>
Actually, I thought your response to redcat was hysterical. ;-) -- The Second Evil, 09:39:32 10/26/02 Sat
[> [> [>
Re: Actually, I thought your response to redcat was hysterical. ;-) -- wuthering, 10:39:52 10/26/02 Sat
Thankyou...I thought it was rather witty myself.
Thankyou for checking the IPs Masq.
[> [> [> [>
Well, it seems most posters in this thread feel that I owe Meems and wuthering apologies. -- redcat, 14:25:12 10/26/02 Sat
It's true that my post in Meems' thread (below) was the first to use the word "troll" and also asked whether he/she was the same person as wuthering. Given Masq's confirmation that Meems' and wuthering's posts come from different IP addresses, many regular posters on the board undoubtedly now will feel that, at the very least, I rashly, rudely and most unfairly castigated a new poster. If indeed, wuthering and Meems ARE two different people, then I do apologize to wuthering.
However, when I came back to the board this morning and read the extended threads that had developed since I posted my N/T comment and question yesterday, I found myself agreeing rather whole-heartedly with TeacherBoy's, Rob's and Arethusa's criticisms of Meems' original post. As well, I think Meems fits Rahael's definition of a troll and her/his effect on the ATPo community: "New poster comes to push buttons. Buttons are pushed. New poster then affects disdain, calls us stuck up, call into question our view over reading of Buffy and claims we have fulfilled their expectations. Then we start arguing amongst ourselves about how we treat each other, whether we read too much into these things, how we are cruel to newbies etc." I highly doubt that Meems will return, but if she/he does, I doubt even more that I will change my mind enough to feel that I owe her/him an apology.
This leaves the question of identity. Finn's supposition about why I thought Meems and wuthering might be the same poster is only partially right. My actual reasoning was a bit more involved than simply noting the fact that they both showed up on the board within a few days of each other and displayed similar opinions, although both facts were important considerations.
More telling for me were three other factors: the similarity in their writing styles in terms of repetitive grammar, punctuation and vocabulary choices; the organizational strategy of their two thread-originating essays, Meems' "Sociopathic Scoobs, Dippy Ol' Buffy, and a Continuation of Vampire Slaying?", and wuthering's "When the Humans are Nastier than the Demons"; and, finally, the aggressively negative tone with which their opinions about the show and it's fans were expressed. Meems' post, in fact, immediately made me think of wuthering's. If indeed Meems and wuthering are two different posters, rather than one poster with easy access to two different IP addresses, then I find the similarities in the follow examples of their
writing quite surprising.
Similarity #1: repetitive grammar, punctuation and vocabulary choices
Both Meem and wuthering tend to punctuate dependent clauses as if they were sentences, especially dependent clauses that complete a prior sentence's thought; as well, both perform that habit's corollary by writing sentences which, in effect, become improperly-punctuated dependent clauses due to the lack of a main verb. In fact, clausal punctuation is the most common mistake in both essays. Although their punctuation is often improper, grammar
concerns like tense agreement and the pronoun/contraction distinction of its/it's are usually correct. While a few words are misspelled, both writers tend to use advanced vocabulary, i.e., college-level words and phrases, but this trend is more prominent in the choice of nouns and adjectives than verbs, which remain predominantly written in the passive voice. These writing habits indicate remarkably similar speech patterns between the two posters, as well as similar levels of education and attention to writing craft.
Examples:
wuthering: "Buffy, Willow and Xander have always had their moments of sanctimonious patronage of other humans let alone other ''beings''. Finally, perhaps they are going to have to face what they have become. Willow typifying the girl/woman scared of her own female/witch powers and running from them before she learns to control them. Buffy with her unforgiving judgmental attitude. Too afraid still to see the frailty in herself and accept and embrace it. "
Meems: "Every female character has been turned into an "avenging" characature [sic] of Grrrl Power. Screwing up as much as the now useless males. But more often than not, being revered after some rationalizing tirade for why she was a jerky, conniving bitch in the first place. Or worse."
Similarity #2: organizational strategies
The structure of both essays, while not exactly the same, share an important functional similarity. Both alternate seemingly-objective sentences written in a fairly reasonable, even conversational, tone that appears to directly address (and thus creates) a fictive 'reasonable reader,' with sentences that are particularly vituperative or condemnatory, followed by sentences that function to close down rather than open up conversation and debate.
Examples:
wuthering: "Is it their [Anya's and Spike's] larger life experience? It would be convenient to say yes, but I''m not so sure.
Or is it that 21st century middle class American teenagers (or however you would classify that late teen early 20s age group) have an inflated sense of self and an intrinsic sense of right they have adopted along with the other members of their culture? This is the one I''ll put my money on. A form of Nationalist pride that holds at its core the belief that whatever the group is that you belong to, be it peer, age, race, gender or country - it is the norm and any deviation is freakish and to be despised. Really because these people are scared of anything different to themselves that undoubtedly challenges their own false, empty belief of who they are."
Meems: "I'm sure the following thoughts aren't new to Buffy fans or haters. Even to die-hards who still refuse to believe an alarming degradation in the show's quality and characterizations began after the first third of Season 6. I won't go into detail of any specific moment or scene, because it's a pointless way to invite useless dispute about thematic milestones over quality level."
Further, both posts actually DO offer critiques of the show that may well be valid and that are shared by many other posters on the board, although little or nor direct evidence is offered in either post to support their authors' opinions, which other posters here generally attempt to do.
Similarity #3: aggressively negative tone
Hmmm, almost too many goodies to choose from. Here are just a few extra selections to add to the ones above.
wuthering: "So shake them up Joss and Co. because I am sick to death of the presumption the Scoobs have, that they are in the right. Hold up the mirror and show them the
damage they are doing. The cruelty they are inflicting. Put an end to this false myth of their intrinsic goodness."
Meems: "The show, to many fans (except those seeming in need of a co-dependent, passive-aggressive relationship with their TV sets) seemed to quickly degenerate into a thinly veiled male-bashing show, even as it occasionally winked at us that Buffy was doing this for a while with Spike. An insulting ploy to cover that fault (and many others) in Season 6 and into Season 7. "
So, if I really do owe an apology to wuthering for questioning (not stating, BTW, just questioning) whether or not she might be the same poster as someone whose post I found more than just a bit trollish, then I offer it. If, on the other hand, the existence of two IP addresses provides only ambiguous evidence of innocence or guilt, then I'll just have to take wuthering's assertion of her independence at face value -- pretty much the same way she'll have to take my apology.
redcat
[> [> [> [> [>
Wow! Really interesting analysis!!!! Wish I knew grammar! -- Sara, 16:50:46 10/26/02 Sat
You've just reminded me of all my failures as an English major! I had way too much fun as an undergrad! (I blame Darby...) Glad everyone didn't waste away their youth the way I did.
- Sara, who can hardly spell or punctuate, but has great admiration for others who can.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Well, it seems most posters in this ....apologies. -- wuthering, 17:09:56 10/26/02 Sat
Redcat, I accept your apology in the same spirit in which it was offered.
[> [> [> [> [>
most posters -- Arethusa, 18:48:07 10/26/02 Sat
Thanks. I don't think there was any question at all that wuthering was insulting to Americans and Meems was insulting to BtVS and its viewers. But it's also very clear that the board doesn't want confrontational posts. I don't want to scare off any lurkers or newbies, so no more posts.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: most posters -- Masq, 19:36:50 10/26/02 Sat
Arethusa,
You're not leaving are you? 'cause that would be sad turn of events!
Stay, don't let the occassional vitriol scare you away
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Second that...please stay Arethusa -- shadowkat, 05:57:30 10/27/02 Sun
You've become one of my favorite posters...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Very much thirding (fourthing, pick one! ;-)... likewise. -- OnM, 06:29:35 10/27/02 Sun
Been there, done this. Learned something new and moved on-- it can be a growth experience in many ways. Please take it as such, and remember that these little skirmishes are actually very rare here, and we generally twist them around into something fairly interesting anyway.
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you all very much. -- Arethusa, 06:54:59 10/27/02 Sun
How can I leave, when this is one of the very few places I've ever wanted to be? I don't feel up to the standards of education and and erudition here, but for once I don't care. I'm an Existential Scooby, for better or for worse.
(Masq-I'd like to finally submit a Meet the Posters bio, sometime later today-gotta take the kids to church now.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you all very much. -- Rahael, 07:42:02 10/27/02 Sun
Arethusa,
my mind boggles when you say you don't feel up to the standard of education and erudition. As far as I'm concerned your posts always display an extremely sharp mind; clear thinking and great subtlety. I noticed it from the very first posts you made here. Subsequent posts/events also revealed you have a kind heart to boot.
I have more than one occasion to be grateful to you. So glad you are staying.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't know about most posters, -- Sophist, 20:51:03 10/26/02 Sat
but this one would like to keep reading your posts.
[> [>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- Masq, 10:20:32 10/26/02 Sat
"Last night someone said that Meems and I are the same person. Please do check the IP addresses we are not"
This is true.
[> [> [>
Thanks for clearing that up, Masq. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 14:03:44 10/26/02 Sat
[> [>
And herein lies the danger in assuming trolldom. -- HonorH, 11:08:58 10/26/02 Sat
A reasoned response is one you'll never regret. Assuming trolldom means that those with non-hostile intents get torpedoed right along with the jerks. That's unfortunate.
[>
Not definition, but attitude. -- Solitude1056, 09:14:18 10/26/02 Sat
First off, I've been reading posts - good and bad - on this forum for so long now that it didn't even occur to me that Meems' post had trollish qualities. I've seen too many posts made by otherwise well-intentioned non-english-speakers to automatically assume that the person should be kept to a certain standard of the language. After spending the past ten months struggling to learn Chinese characters, I guess you could say I've mellowed dramatically when it comes to challenging people based primarily on their writing or spelling ability. I point that out because when I see such a response now, I tend to put the responder's criticism in the category of trolling - regardless of whether the person is a regular or new poster, and regardless of my opinion of the original post.
All that said, I don't agree with the concept that inflammatory posts are measured on a "gut sense" basis; nor do I think that non-trolling responses are always identified by their willingness to carefully balance the linguistic connotations (remember the international flavor of this board) followed by open-ended questions. I have made more than my fair share of opinion-based statements on this board over the past two years, and I've certainly never bothered to make it a mandatory inclusion to ask people questions about it. The question may sometimes be implied - such as when Earl makes a statement and follows it up with his mantra, "take it and run" - but this isn't always the case. Sometimes I am simply stating my take on the episode or issue, and don't really consider my opinion up for debate; I am merely adding my voice to everyone elses. In a way, we are agreeing to disagree, but expressing our opinions so at least we all know where we're each coming from. That sort of instance - which happens frequently around here - isn't really a debate so much as an exchange of opinions and impressions, and as such hardly requires open-ended questions to reassure readers that we're willing to change our opinion. I loathed Cordy's costume in the Pylea arc, and I'm not going to change my opinion just because the rest of you thought she looked hot.
Now, having said all that, I think there's a single major criteria for assessing a post when it's an opinion-based statement with no followup questions.
Is this a subject that interests me?
I used to respond to so many posts, even if it was just a one-liner. Great post!, I'd say. Or, I see where you're coming from, I'd write. It's the electronic version of nodding politely during a coversation, I suppose, and I figured it helped people know that someone was listening. But let's face it, in person, I've picked up a lot of habits from my Indian friends, and I don't even bother responding to many statements these days. You've said it, I heard it, and it doesn't require a response. Not all rhetorical statements - or speakers, for that matter - need their little sensitivities stroked by a listener. I've taken to assuming people are mature enough to be able to speak without the overwhelming need for an audience to applaud.
Where does that put me on the boards? It means that when someone posts like Meems, I look to assess that question first. In this case, arguing strongly that BtVS has gone down the tubes interests me, personally, about as much as the posts that argue it's "the best episode ever!" Extremes are usually a sign that I'm dealing with an opinion. In Meems' case I think the opinion was valid - most are - and there is certainly a case to be made for some of hir arguments. But with no room for debate, and an unwillingness on my part to exchange opinions on a topic that bores me, I chose to ignore it - but I didn't consider it a troll automatically. I prefer to give some benefit of the doubt for at least three posts in one thread. I also use dubdub's list of troll criteria (I think she first created it) but mine's a bit shorter.
1. If the post is a series of one-sentence paragraphs that essentially claim "Spike is a serial killer," or "Buffy is no better than the Nazis," or argues its case by quoting grade B television shows as examples;
2. If the poster retaliates to neutral posts by attacking responders personally.
In this case, it's murkier, because it appears some regular posters went on the offensive - and if I were to post my opinion and get such a response, I'd probably be a little miffed as well. So I didn't consider Meems a troll right off the bat, but I did consider the poster to be someone less interested in engaging in debate.
At heart, I suppose my curiousity revolves around the question of: how is this any different from the posts from fellow ATPo'ers that rave enthusiastically about (nearly) every episode? We respond to those without attack, and aren't upset when they don't change their positive opinions. I find it hypocritical to attack someone for negative opinions when they've not even mentioned Nazis, and haven't attacked anyone personally. I don't consider "all codependent viewers" to be a personal attack, by the way - how is that any different from positive posts that refer to "all intelligent viewers"? Does the fact that one compliments us make it okay? It's just the other end of a spectrum of non-poster-specific sweeping generalizations. Whether it refers to us as a board, or to a single person, is entirely up to us, as the readers. I don't see myself as codependent, or stupid, so I didn't see Meems as speaking to me personally. I've lived long enough - and The Gift confirmed my experience - that sometimes there really is a third option. The fact that someone doesn't acknowledge this doesn't mean they're right.
The end result, however, is that I ignore the posts just as much as I would other posts falling within the "not worth the effort" category, so that makes me a rather bad barometer for measuring whether I've assessed a poster as having trollish tendencies.
[> [>
well said, Sol -- celticross, 09:44:38 10/26/02 Sat
[> [>
No texters -- Rahael, 11:08:49 10/26/02 Sat
I have to say, I like the nods and the no texters. It always seems to me a more meaningful version of smileys and emoticons. (Mundus expressed very well once why emoticons are a strange and unsatisfying substitute.)
It's not so much like an audience applauding but an equivalent of the smiles in everyday life that can make the difference between a good day and an indifferent one. After all, aren't nods and body language an essential part of human conversation? It always seems that it's the unwritten things that make people bristle up, the eye to eye contact that allows us to place remarks in context.
On the other hand, it's a pity when long and complex post recieve nothing but no texters - I always try to write some kind of lengthy response when I feel particularly inspired after reading a good post/essay. I prefer always to have a back and forth conversation here, rather than make a rhetorical statement (I remember the Agean threads with fondness.) In fact, I try and treat all rhetorical statements as though they are conversational gambits.
Rahael, hopefully trying to live by this belief by doing a non-no-texter response. Even though those are nice too.
[> [> [>
I agree, but this may not have been clear. -- Solitude1056, 13:41:38 10/26/02 Sat
Allow me to repeat the qualification that when a topic doesn't appeal to, or interest, me, then I don't usually participate. That's not meant as a value judgement; I mean, do you really want to see a half-hearted response - just for the sake of responding? But if it's something that is really thought-provoking, especially insightful, or somehow inspires me to respond, then I'm disinclined these days to give only a oneliner... a single 100-letter response can rarely suffice for the response deserved by such a post.
I tend to reserve onliners for tangential jokes and random affirmations, such as thanking or welcoming someone.
[> [> [> [>
Certainly -- Rahael, 17:21:22 10/26/02 Sat
I tend to post slightly differently - usually a post starts making me think while I'm busy at work. The posts at this board make me think a lot, even when I don't agree with them, even if sometimes they are inelegantly expressed. I start remembering eps which contradict or fit the evidence, and I guess I'm one of life's talkative people. The board makes me remember that I more than just the person who runs around trying to find case studies for a journalist, or has to finish off a hundred and one mundane, utterly mindnumbing tasks. Reminds me that I have thoughts about poetry and history and that I've developed all these relationships with these words on a white screen.
So I guess I get more interested in all sorts of things, not just the brilliant posts. After all, most days, it's my only common experience with my boyfriend. Actually, that could explain almost everything. I only started posting here substantively after I started caring what a certain person thought of me.
I should qualify this post, and the reply to Mundus by adding that I consumed rather a quantity of very fine wine with dinner. Of course, at the moment, I think I am being totally rational. Soon I'll start telling everyone I love them. Tomorrow morning I will cringe.
(On that note, btw, I should thank Darby and the meme thread. The briefing I wrote for my boss using some of the stuff that had been in my mind after that discussion has resulted in all sorts of changes in my job description that I have been trying to effect for two years. Including getting out of my office more, and going back to doing hardcore research in the British Library. One of my favourite places in London!)
[> [> [> [> [>
Watch OUT!!! -- Wisewoman, 17:39:35 10/26/02 Sat
Rahael is about to start channeling Birthday!Marie...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Watch OUT!!! -- Rahael, 18:06:26 10/26/02 Sat
Well, I think I just announced that I love Spike in another thread! Even worse, it might be true!!
I also nearly announced my love for all the board people I've met in real life: Darren, Anom, Kim and Ed, Mole, Mundus, Little Bit but I deleted that post!!!! LOL. Don't want to embarras anyone now!
But I'll take this opportunity to say, dub, how very fond I am of you, and all the times you've helped me. Without you, my life would be utterly different at the moment. How cliquish is this????
Also, all the wonderful and eloquent people who email me regularly, who have given me so much, you know how much I appreciate you. New lurkers, stick around - after you get to know them, even all the posters who I used to be scared of, turned out to be big old softies. (Not that any of the above named were in this category. Okay, maybe dH was a little scary.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Watch OUT!!! -- aliera, 18:45:09 10/26/02 Sat
AND you wrote a whole (wonderful) post on Spike the other day. Horrors! Rah unleashed on the nature of the Spike! The mind boggles! And echoing the board affection (natch). This place and others I frequent always make me think and frequently open up delicious new tangents to explore and contemplate. Not a small thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Awwww, that's so sweet! -- dub, 19:15:23 10/26/02 Sat
Thank you, Sweetie.
And remember, there's a big difference between clique and community!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
I'm honored to have been of service... -- Darby, 20:33:32 10/26/02 Sat
Serendipity, what a concept!
- Does this mean I have to believe in leprechauns now?
Is this a bad time to say the more that I think about it, the more I think that I didn't know what the hell I was talking about beyond my attempt to shoehorn one idea into another?
Never mind.
D'you think Meems knows about memes? I've been thinking about that today, and I haven't had anything to drink!
I'm really happy for you, Rah - I love library research, even in the dinky little libraries I've spent days in. There's such a treasure-hunt aspect to it. It's like some types of internet research, but as Giles said, it's more sensory, more immersing.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Treasure Hunts -- Rahael, 11:31:36 10/27/02 Sun
Yes, that's why I like it too. ( and this board can often perform that function too, sometimes)
As for that thread, I'll just repeat what I said to you before. I thought your posts were really interesting and made me think a lot. That's all the criteria I have when I think of my favourite threads. There's a total difference in a day I have spent thinking and planning responses to those where I keep on doing whatever monotonous job I've been putting off. I have no idea why people equate disagreement with taking offence, nor why I had given the impression that I had somehow been offended by other people thinking differently to me!
So I disagreed with two posters whose posts I frequently read first in any thread? As far as I am concerned I take their ideas seriously enough to debate it out with them. I disagree with dH on nearly 9 things out of 10.
[> [> [>
It's one of the specificity of this board I love -- Ete, 14:56:49 10/26/02 Sat
The way people takes the time to simply says "Good post" etc... even though sometimes I feel guilty and I wonder how much is that a need for an "overwhelming need for an audience to applaud".
[> [> [> [>
Good post! (giggle) -- ponygirl who has been drinking, 22:20:51 10/26/02 Sat
[> [>
Re: Not definition, but attitude. -- Sophie, 13:43:56 10/26/02 Sat
After spending the past ten months struggling to learn Chinese characters, I guess you could say I've mellowed dramatically when it comes to challenging people based primarily on their writing or spelling ability.
You've said it, I heard it, and it doesn't require a response.
Ahh...Sol. This is the beauty of getting older. You take time to struggle and grapple with things, enjoy, and slowly mellow.
I can't sniff out trolls worth a d***. I generally don't try, and I definately should have left Sophomorica sleeping under the couch instead of chiming in last night. Guilty.
Sophie
[> [>
Really nice post -- matchng mole, 13:44:53 10/26/02 Sat
Coming on the board today after a two day absence I read over the 'Mems thread' with mixed feelings. While Meems struck me as being unecessarily confrontational in his/her language the post as a whole did not strike me as trollish. It did contain a lot of opinionated statements but those statements did form an argument that was of a very different character than merely saying Buffy is cold and terrible to Spike or Spike is a murdering animal and must be put down. Or even just saying BtVS sucks and Charmed is way better.
If some person on the board whom I respected had insulted me, I'd feel hurt. I didn't feel hurt or insulted by Meems but that's just me, I'm pretty thick-skinned when I'm separated from the other person by many, many miles of cable. Especially when it's someone that I've never had any previous contact with.
I also think that Meems kind of had a point or two buried in the post. The comments about the early Scoobies vs. the late in terms of loyalty and knowing what was going on struck a chord (although the tactless language tended reduce the sympathetic vibration). I do think that the changes in the show have lost a lot of what made the show great in S2-S4. However I wouldn't want the show to stay the same forever. I appreciate that the writers try new things. But that doesn't mean that I always have to like them. But part of what I like about this board is that it helps me confront what I do and don't like about the show and what that tells me about the show and about myself.
I think I'm risking meandering and rambling so I think I'll just wind up by saying that while the Meems post struck me as unecessarily confrontational (and thus perhaps having trollish elements) it did not strike me as being a troll post in the sense that I had previously understood it.
Maybe I should change me evil alter-ego to 'Mole the troll'
[> [>
Re: Not definition, but attitude. -- Cleanthes, 16:53:19 10/26/02 Sat
At heart, I suppose my curiousity revolves around the question of: how is this any different from the posts from fellow ATPo'ers that rave enthusiastically about (nearly) every episode? We respond to those without attack, and aren't upset when they don't change their positive opinions. I find it hypocritical to attack someone for negative opinions when they've not even mentioned Nazis, and haven't attacked anyone personally.
The case of excessive cheerleading style posts does not form a true opposite to grumpy hostile posts.
Let's stipulate that the cheerleader and the grump share equally in rhetorical skill. So, to the extent the cheerleader succeeds, people become happier with their lives because their lives include Buffy/Angel viewing.
Conversely, a grump who succeeds rhetorically in getting people to agree with the gumpy pov, causes people to become grumpy.
In case #1, the overall happiness quotient of the universe increases, in case #2 it decreases. Spoilsporting IS immoral. Pollyanna WAS a good influence on her friends and family.
The Stoic summation of this goes: "No logic can be given for whines and complaints. In order to complain of something, one must recall an unpleasant event in memory, and so twice taste the bitter fruit." (my paraphrase of Marcus Aurelius)
And the other formulation goes "Try to enjoy the great festival of life with other people." Epictetus
[> [> [>
I believe you "Starve a Troll and feed a Fever" -- Rufus, 20:17:26 10/26/02 Sat
I don't reply to trolls, prefering to starve them of my attention hoping others take the hint and do the same. By getting into any sort of pissing contest good sense and manners can be forgotten.
[>
Trolling for flames and flaming trolls *PLEASE READ* -- HonorH, 09:35:41 10/26/02 Sat
Sorry to hijack here, Earl, but I think your question is pretty much beside the point. It's not about being sure someone's a troll or not; it's about how we respond.
You'll note that my response is the first to Meems' diatribe. You'll also note that it's gotten no replies from Meems itself. I expressed disagreement concisely and objected to the characterization of persons such as myself, but didn't engage in tit-for-tat.
Now, I'm not holding myself up as an example of All Things Holy, but isn't that a bit more constructive than jumping straight to insults? It makes us look bad, not Meems. Trolls look bad enough already without heaping insults on them.
My thoughts? If you're not sure if someone's a troll, why not respond rationally? Perhaps ask them to clarify their "arguments". If they don't respond, or respond in an insulting way, you can be sure they're just here to be a jerk.
Normally, I wouldn't even bother with a post like this. Most boards aren't mature enough to even consider not responding to inflammatory persons. However, from what I've seen of this board, we all have the maturity necessary for a reasoned response rather than knee-jerk insults. So can I ask you, one and all: will you stop feeding the trolls?
[> [>
Re: Trolling for flames and flaming trolls *PLEASE READ* -- Rob, 09:50:37 10/26/02 Sat
Sure, go ahead, and make me feel immature!
But seriously, I agree with you. I always tell myself I'm not gonna respond to posts like that, and then off I go clicking the "approve" button on the post I just wrote, without thinking about the fact that I'm just feeding the troll.
I've reformed my ways, now, though. No more troll-spearing. Just troll-ignoring.
Rob
[> [>
Re: Trolling for flames and flaming trolls *PLEASE READ* -- TeacherBoy, 10:21:31 10/26/02 Sat
So *that's* what they mean by 'turn the other cheek.' I always thought it had something to do with smacking someone twice.
Ok, ok, point taken, lesson learned, mea culpa, etc. Sould I have written that? Well, probably not, but I don't think it reflects well on me that I don't feel that bad about it. However, HonorH, I do think EA has a point when he asks the question of how should one respond when attacked. 98% of the time, I think you're right. Don't feed the trolls. Unfortunately for me, this poster just happened to push one of my buttons. If someone tells me that I'm an idiot and what I think I wrong - well, I wouldn't have anything to say, because for all I know they're probably right. But when someone says, 'Now I'm not saying you're an idiot, but..." and combines that with agressively bad thinking, for some reason I just can't help it. Chalk it up to a character flaw. I have many.
Seeing as how I always read your posts anyway (you never have ask!), I'll take your advice. And I'm putting myself of Board Probation for one week - no reading or responding. Yes, I know, there's no new ep this week, so I'm not exactly killing myself here. This will just leave me more time to write about "Firefly". I was going to write some more, but Blackburn just went up 2-1 to Arsenal, so I have to go.
Cheers,
TeacherBoy
Go Rovers
[> [> [>
Regarding being attacked-- -- HonorH, 10:32:15 10/26/02 Sat
If it's a personal attack that's misrepresenting something you said, by all means, respond in a dignified-yet-snippy way, clarifying what you said and asking to please not be misrepresented again, or you will be Very Angry Indeed.
If, OTOH, it's just a troll slinging wide-ranging insults, ignoring them really is the way to go. If you find it hard to do, just picture said troll sitting at home, staring in frustration at their computer screen as their posts go apparently unnoticed. I personally find that very satisfying indeed.
[> [> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 10:58:16 10/26/02 Sat
That's a priceless image!
[> [> [>
Re: Trolling for flames and flaming trolls *PLEASE READ* -- CW, 10:53:13 10/26/02 Sat
We've also found that one of the best ways to get true trolls to shut up is to hijack the tread. That was part of what I was doing, engaging you about that class description last night. I'm not very good at carrying on converstaions, though. Hope I wasn't insulting to you.
Wuthering, I'm sorry, if I insulted you, but you should understand this is not a typical fan board. We're mostly older adults. As people have pointed out above, here it really does matter how things are presented. That's one reason why people go to school - to learn how to act in an adult conversation. Memes wants to separate the cyber-world from the real world. That's not realistic. You can't walk into a crowd and start acting like that and expect people to treat you nicely. Life just doesn't work that way.
[>
Re: It is in the structure of the communication and the motivations of the communicator -- Deb, 14:41:56 10/26/02 Sat
Ok, here's my opportunity to 'fess up. I am not an English major. I am a communication arts major, which just means that I study all forms of communication: media, literature, film, television, advertising, speech, drama, body language, speech arts -- and methods of assessing various variables. Included within in this is the question of persuasion (which is not my main area of concern, I am a neo-postmodernist meaning that I deconstruct and reconstruct texts to attempt to find a solution to any social problem embedded within the text. Postmodernism exhalts chaos -- mainly, in this author's personal opinion -- because they do not realize that it has a system of structure. It looks for the problem, whines about the problem, but does not attempt to find the solution. [to the problem] This is all generally speaking of course.)
In persuasion, studies by Hoviland have shown that people are more open to looking at different world views when their own world view is acknowledged as being valid also. [You scratch my back and I'll consider scratching yours.] Furthermore, the more intelligent the audience, the more "sides" of an issue that must be presented. Explicit arguments do not persuade an educated audience. Implicit arguments allow them to participate in another's world view. So the structure of any essay, research paper, or persuasive text serves the needs of the audience with presentation of said argument in an "academic" or "I am the speaker, but the speaker is not me." distancing from the text. The audience must also be informed of what color your lenses are when you are arguing. You may have rose colored glasses, but others have "other" [as in 'not me'] colored glasses. This is one big difference between Trolling and Analysis. Analysis allows the audience to change glasses before the show begins. Trolling is more like "gorilla" warfare. You are caught up in the event, but dam* if you know why, who it is, or where it is going. You have been emotionally kidnapped.
Motive can be conscious and unconscious or perhaps subconscious, but I don't think it can be superconscious or supraconscious. (I'll check on that.)
My motive to be this board is to diffuse the academic mentally by not taking my critiques seriously: Again, identity thing. 'I am the critique, but save me from becoming the critique, please!' So this board allows me to talk about my interests and not end up on some kind of transference obsession. It also allows me to laugh at my life. So, I invite you into my head, my world-view via the language of Buffy, but life is so tragic and hurts SO MUCH, it is ridiculous so I must summon up the comic Trickster, and hope that you see that the joke is me, but I am not the joke.
Trolls motives: First we must consider that many people who come to this board, and others, after lurking a bit, might feel a bit inadequate, (I jumped right in before I could determine if I was adequate to the challenge or not. It saves a lot of time and emotional torment. I knew I could, and still can, leave if it comes to it.) and as Xander says, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to anger." The circle of dysfuction.
Missouri, er Misery loves company, so 'why are you people so happy when you are obviously nuts!!' mentality. 'I am not nuts, therefore, I should be happy!' This is not fair, so I will so things by my own rules. [which I realize that I am an excellent example of doing thing by my own rules, but my motivation is to "lighten-up," not "beat them up.") Self-esteem takes a licking [eew!], and, well, it is only the brave who admit that they are the creators of their own self-esteem; their own lives; their own "all you can be."
To "help" without actually "being helpful" is to be cruel to be kind. If the audience does not respond to the anger, to the attacks on character, then said Troll is left with the duty of making a personal, indeed, choice. The Troll must act and not react. 'Do I leave, or do I change, because what I am doing isn't meeting any of my needs.'
(Jump to the bottom for the conclusion if you are not interested in my following comments.)
Pardon me. Buffy is coming on Fox. Be back in one hour.
This is an example of audience participation. You can put yourself into my place -- watching Buffy. Later.
Commercial Break: It's the very first Buffy I ever watched! Buffy goes to college and meets Riley (the low point of the show in my opinion.) Later.
Commercial Break: Loved the Pop Culture Prof. -- "not here to critique popular culture. -- To Buffy: you're "sucking energy from everyone in this room." "Buffy: Sorry, didn't mean to suck." It think the professor is a Troll.
Prof. Walsh, ah .... Later.
Okay! I don't remember this the Goth Queen, clothes horse, Vamp. How could I have forgotton her!? "Don't take this the wrong way, but -- I fight like a girl." Yes!
"Slayer blood has got to be, like whoa....Thi [or tied and possibly tide] Stick."
Later.
Xander is likeable. What happened to him.? "Nothing says 'thank you' like dollars in your waist band." He's kinda cute too. What happened to him?
1982! I knew the vamps felt familiar. GDI Goths!
Xander: "Once more with even less feeling." Later.
Oh cool. I get to actually watch season 4 now, and find out how Spike gets his chip!
Dam* Shame about the female Vamp. Really liked her style
Anyway, back to the pointy. Oh, never mind. I think I'm finished. Buffy is such a marvelous show. don't you know. Trolls think so too, or they wouldn't Troll, indeed.
[> [>
Response to comments -- Sarand, 11:34:00 10/27/02 Sun
Okay, it's probably rude to not comment on the bulk of your post but I'm going to do it anyway and offer apologies up front. I watched the same episode yesterday from season 4 and wanted to agree with your statements about Xander. He was very likeable in Season 4 (as you will see) and I miss the guy he used to be. And he was cute and kinda hot - I'm thinking of "Go Fish," where he was wearing a Speedo. Oh, well, it's hard to get old. As for "Thi" Stick, I believe that it is "Thai" stick, a particularly strong form of pot. Oh, and really, that's just supposition on my part.
[> [>
If you liked the blond vamp in that episode and like fanfic? -- shadowkat, 14:35:01 10/27/02 Sun
Try a fanfic written by Dead Soul that is now available
on Band of Buggered web site. The fanfic is about how that blond goth vamp got turned into a vampire and who she was before that. It takes place in 1977 and also stars Spike
and Dru in NYC.
Very good read. It is NC-17 and somewhat S&M but well-written and I highly recommend. I think it may be amongst the best fanfics I've ever read.
[> [> [>
Re: Thanx! I'll check it out. nt -- Deb, 15:05:56 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Second that Recommendation -- Sarand, 19:49:08 10/27/02 Sun
I didn't know that Dead Soul had found a site for it. That's great!
[> [> [>
It's finished? Excellent news. -- Indri, 21:42:12 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Thanks, you guys (blushing) -- Dead Soul, 01:17:54 10/28/02 Mon
It's also at All About Spike (http://www.allaboutspike.com) and Voodoo (http://wonderjade.topcities.com/buffyfanfic.html).
Someday I'll figure out how to do links in posts. The one time I tried it before I ended up covered in alphabet soup.
Oh, and it got recced at TWoP, too (thanks, collinwood, for the heads-up).
Dead (and putting away my own horn now) Soul
[>
A personal single rule... -- KdS, 14:42:14 10/26/02 Sat
Maybe this is a scientist speaking, but I see the difference between constructive criticism and trolling as being the recognition that everything on this board is subjective and untestable.
Let's face it, there is no killer argument when it comes to responses to a work of art or entertainment, and no ultimate truth to appeal to. I can tolerate the most extreme opinions if it's clear that the author recognises that they're his/hers alone. The mark of a troll (conscious mischief making) or monomaniac is the overt implication that anyone who disagrees is a fool, a liar, or has personal psychological problems that blind them to The Truth.
[> [>
Very well said - wish I could be that concise... -- Solitude1056, 15:56:55 10/27/02 Sun
[>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- mundusmundi, 14:57:17 10/26/02 Sat
I've been away from the board quite a bit lately, for reasons both Sol-esque (returning to school) and Liq-like (personal). To be honest, I'd seriously contemplated leaving completely until Ded lured me back with his marvelous musical posts. (Even though I didn't get to sing, a sore point for me.) I basked in the glow of it for a few hours, until Meems' post and, more precisely, the ensuing flurry of responses brought a bitter taste back to my mouth. Now I don't know. I may depart again for a lengthy sabbatical, but before I do I want to acknowledge the fact that Earl, as always, has a good question. I'm afraid what follows isn't a good answer.
Nevertheless, I shall press forward and say that as far as Meems is concerned (and I seem to vaguely recall his name from a previous incident), his post came and went while barely entering my mental faculties. The only part I wholly agreed with - something about the decline in S6 quality after the first-third of the season - sounded remarkably similar to the wording in a better essay I remember reading this summer by another poster at a different board. The rest of it struck me as mostly pointless baiting. Unless baiting was the point, though I agree with matching mole that he had a valid idea or two buried within it. So I'm surprised, although I know I shouldn't be, by the voluminous and heated responses it's received. Granted, Meems' subsequent posts in said thread were troll-like, but we'll never know whether this was his agenda all along or if he was merely feeling defensive. Maybe both.
Some of us have debated before the best way to combat trolls (and by this I mean the more blatant kind, e.g., our hydra-headed troll from last year, or Boke). Some feel that we should challenge them directly, and in a theoretical way I understand the support for that view. However, I think the evidence of actual experience unambiguously shows that the best way to deal with confrontational or incendiary posters -- other than the board moderator banning them - is, once their agenda is clear, to ignore them. We should be careful about jumping the gun, lest an innocent or merely eccentric person or somebody who just chooses his words poorly gets blasted. We also need to make a distinction between personal attacks, whereby any decent poster at the receiving end of one deserves a to be defended, and sweeping broad-sided attacks of the board as a whole that are too ridiculous to take seriously. I'm pretty thin-skinned myself, but being accused of having "a codependent relationship with my TV set" ranks in my mind near the bottom of the proverbial list of insults. It would have been better had someone attempted to sift out Meems' point (or at least tried to see if there was one) and asked him to clarify his initial opinion. If afterwards he started to get personal, then the obligatory accusations and hijackings could begin. What's curious about trollish behavior is that personal attacks often get ignored (and vhD used to take advantage of this), while the general mischief-making variety generates multitudes of replies. Which is exactly why they tend to cast a wide net in the first place.
But I think there is also a more important reason for ignoring trolls, and that concerns the effects our responses have on new posters. It's an inevitable fact that when we engage in heated confrontations we are going to show the less appealing aspects of our personalities, and taken as a whole our exchanges do have the potential to catch newbies or lurkers in the crossfire. In the discussed thread alone, we've seen wuthering get accused of being pseudonymous with Meems, and Arys come out and tactfully but firmly admonish us for our responses. Neither appears to be a troll. And as d'Herblay's Law states: One need not be a troll to agree with one.
The flipside is also unfortunately true, which is that one may not be a troll and still engage in poorly-considered board behavior. In Meems' thread, Rob (who is not a troll, I hasten to add) claims that posters on this board normally don't criticize grammar. But a few weeks ago, a new poster for whom English is a second language unwittingly spawned a lengthy thread ridiculing grammatical mistakes, and, I suspect, made him feel reluctant to post here again. (His response to the ridicule was dignified.) I'm a little ashamed to have participated in that thread, and I would now like to request that the grammatical corrections please be kept to a minimum. I'd also like to suggest that we can the "Evil Aliases." It was fun for a while, and I engaged in it too, but it may be starting to create the perception that we're using them as a means to participate in a form of legitimized trollery. From the vantage point of newbies or lurkers, it isn't hard to imagine that they may feel a sense of "cliquishness" among us, and that they may be even more daunted to participate than they already are.
Like most everyone, there have been times where I've lost my temper or my sense of humor and written things that I'm not terribly proud for having written. If I'm even halfway satisfied about anything, it's that I like to think I have largely refrained from making newbies feel unwelcome. (I save my quarrels for regulars.) What's concerning me now is that aside from the extremely Internet-savvy, I'm seeing fewer delurkers these days (Deb being an exception) and fewer warm welcomes in return (ditto). I regret that I don't have any quantifying data at my disposal, but it seemed that this happened more often a year or so ago, during the time when, not incidentally, an extremely shy and tentative individual who took the posting name of mundusmundi was greeted openly and made to feel at home.
AtPo has been a good place to be, insofar as the Internet is concerned. I'm fond of nearly all of you (though some of my favorite posters appear to have departed for the Firefly board), and this forum has powerful sentimental value for me. But to speak frankly, I don't like some of the stuff I'm seeing these days. I don't like myself for participating in it, and the stuff I do like I don't seem able to offer any good responses to. (Sorry, but I prefer my prepositions when they're dangling.) This isn't an ultimatum, nor is it a melodramatic fare-thee-well. These are just some thoughts and concerns, legitimate or otherwise, that have been on my mind.
And now back to library science fun.
Peace,
-mm
[> [>
Delurkers -- Rahael, 16:46:43 10/26/02 Sat
I wrote out a list for Sol of posters who didn't have poster's profiles on the site. There seemed to be quite a few new posters (or new to me); they just seemed not to announce their newness though. It seems to me that the new posters who get the warmest welcomes are those who write large and noticeable essays. Many, like me, just slip a sentence or short paragraph here and there until they get the confidence to make a larger post. I remember HonorH getting a very warm welcome; Deb too, also Artemis with her long essay.
I tend to think that the initial posts often set the tone of the response that follows - those whose tone is confrontational generate confrontational responses, and the response is almost automatic. For example, Rochefort, who I think is hilarious and very witty - I went the rounds with him after his first Marti-hostile posts. However, this is something to watch out for, because not everyone takes the responses they recieve in their stride, as Rochefort does.
As for becoming disenchanted with the board, and feeling that we can appear exclusive or cliquey, I'm not going to argue with you there. Though I think that we've always had bad patches; this is not a new trend, and I don't think that we've always previously been very open and exclusivity a new development. You had a warm welcome, but I'm sure you just made a big initial impression, like Honor or Deb. There are always the quieter entrances who don't, and who lurk with occasional posts, until they settle down.
And the grammar thing isn't new. I remember what happened to Etrangere, and that was ages and ages ago.
As for the evil aliases, you are right; they should be abandoned. However, when I first started lurking here, exactly that impression you described was conveyed to me by the evil rankings, and all these jokes about Cat worshipping etc. All these acronyms to learn. At least anyone can have an evil alias - but evil rankings are honours conferred on a few regulars.
Not that I have a real issue. It's natural that people who come to one place regularly, know each other and develop certain idiosyncracies. Some of us know each other really well, more than distant ether-correspondents. Sometimes this creates a good atmosphere, other times it can be grating, but we should try to make the tension a creative one.
[> [>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- Masq, 17:27:52 10/26/02 Sat
mm,
It's been so long since we had a troll that I'd be sad to see you leave again just over this one incident. We have a lot of new people on the board who haven't absorbed the culture of the board yet and learned the ways we have learned to deal with trolls.
A little patience?, if you have the time to hang, of course...
We miss you!
[> [>
One small point...? -- Wisewoman, 19:57:44 10/26/02 Sat
Love ya, mm, wouldn't wanna lose ya, ever.
I'd also like to suggest that we can the "Evil Aliases." It was fun for a while, and I engaged in it too, but it may be starting to create the perception that we're using them as a means to participate in a form of legitimized trollery. From the vantage point of newbies or lurkers, it isn't hard to imagine that they may feel a sense of "cliquishness" among us, and that they may be even more daunted to participate than they already are.
I see your point, but I would hate to lose things like "Honorificus's" wonderful evil episode reviews--they make my week!
I hope that what newcomers may see as "cliquishness" is actually a sense of community that has developed over time amongst some of us. That's a legitimate thing, and something else I'd hate to lose. Hopefully new people will read the FAQ and hang around long enough to get a feel for this group as a community before they pass judgment.
Okay, maybe that was more than one small point...
dub ;o)
[> [> [>
Gotta agree here. -- Rob, 17:37:28 10/27/02 Sun
The evil aliases are among the more fun, playful things we get to do here at the Board. Now, they should not be used to seriously attack posters, but when they're used in jest, as they are now, and to respond to the Honorificus evil reviews, they're really a blast...and I'd hate to think we'd have to give that up.
Bad time to drop the evil aliases...I just got mine!
Rob
[> [>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- Indri, a relative newcomer, 22:56:34 10/26/02 Sat
But I think there is also a more important reason for ignoring trolls, and that concerns the effects our responses have on new posters. It's an inevitable fact that when we engage in heated confrontations we are going to show the less appealing aspects of our personalities
I started reading the board when "Lessons" was aired, so I think I still count as a new poster. For what it's worth, I have found the board's behavior to be, at least ninety-eight percent of the time, to be thoughtful and genial. On occasion I've thought that some posters have been treated rather harshly, but I suspect this has usually occurred when a "dead horse" topic has been reintroduced, one which regulars feel they have already argued into the ground. There are also some topics which regularly provoke unilluminating skirmishes amid much well-reasoned discussion.
I've been reading some of the archives also, in a vain attempt to catch up on long-running arguments, and I haven't noticed any real change in tone. I also don't mind the evil aliases, if only because I enjoy Honorificus' scathing reviews.
That said, I was still a little surprised by some of the responses to Meems' post. I read it before anyone had yet responded and deliberately chose not to reply. I chose not to because (i) the post made me angry, and (ii) it seemed designed to provoke such a response. It did raise some points worth discussing, most of which have been part of ATP for a good while, but I prefer not to post in anger.
Some of the responses alarmed me because they chose to decry Meems mainly on the grounds of structure and grammar. That is, sometimes the responder was unwilling to challenge the substance of the post and chose instead to attack its form. I've been around the board just long enough to know that the regulars don't normally respond in this fashion but it might have alarmed anyone who'd only been here for a few days.
This is the first discussion board I've participated in, apart from a few posts to the mostly-dormant BetterBuffyFics one. It strikes me that the format of discussion boards lends itself to trolls (assuming here that Meems is a troll). One wants to respond quickly, before a thread gets archived, but then one runs the risk of posting while emotions are running high or before one has thought through the topic. I've already made a couple of posts that struck me as idiotic once I'd hit `send'. A newbie runs the risk of being dismissed after making a single bad post, while a regular may be granted much more leeway (insert parallels here about how a newly-ensouled Spike, who is in effect a new being, is treated less amiably than Willow, who is a long-time Scoob and very seldom naughty).
And yet I am perversely pleased when a regular whose posts I admire makes a gaff. The poster is fallible! So I can make mistakes too and not hide in a cupboard when I say something stupid. It's for this reason I'm glad that all the BtVS characters are imperfect. If only perfect people can be heroic, then the rest of us might as well give up.
Let's hope I don't regret this post in the morning...
[> [> [>
Re: Where do you draw the line between trolling and legitimate criticism? -- JM, 06:27:54 10/27/02 Sun
Don't regret it, it was lovely and very apt. I'm not a newbie, but I post only infrequently. It's a lovely board, the best and kindest place on the 'Net. There are the occassional dust-up, but we all learn and grow from them, though pain gained is regretable.
Wish I had the time and energy to really participate this weekend, but I have been dropping in and out to watch the progress of the discussion during breaks in the work.
[> [> [>
Agreeing entirely (speaking as a fellow newbie) -- Pilgrim, 08:39:26 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Oh, but you are so correct -- Deb, 19:52:53 10/27/02 Sun
I'm new. I have very limited "windows" in a day to check the board and respond. I've come to find out that if I don't respond quickly, the discussion is archived. That's one reason I never proofread. I don't have time. And, yes, there are posts that I wish I could take back the instant they hit the board. But, so far this board has been very kind by not responding to these. This weekend has been very thoughtful on the board. I still have no idea how I found this place, and why I stopped to read.
[> [>
Clarification -- Cactus Watcher, 08:05:03 10/27/02 Sun
I don't think anyone has departed for the Firefly board. Darby, Rob and I do post there frequently, but I don't think any of us (or any of the other posters I recognize there) has left this board.
Like anything else this board goes through cycles. Sometimes I don't see much to respond to. There are whole large threads and sections of large threads I don't read because the topic doesn't interest me. But, usually every week there is something interesting and worth reading here, even if I don't have anything valuable to add to the thread.
Stick around. We would really miss you here!
[> [>
Your lovely and thoughtful post . . . -- Sarand, 11:01:01 10/27/02 Sun
just proves why you should stick around and post more often. As a newbie (delurked during the summer), I have at times felt welcome and at other times not so much by the posters on this board. (One of my first posts, where I was just trying to be funny, was met with a flame by some poster whose name I have really forgotten. But I will be forever grateful to LittleBit for coming to my defense and making me feel better. See what happens when your nice?). I read very little of the thread following Meems post so I don't know if the responses were beyond the pale but I was quite interested in the self-analysis resulting in this thread.
Sometimes it does feel like a club here that has particularly difficult criteria for admission. I'm reluctant to fill out the "Meet the Posters" questionnaire because I don't read philosophers, much less have a favorite. And the TTMQ? It's probably an 11 but not on anything relevant to the show or the board or even life in general. And, as someone said, the posters who are greeted the most warmly are those that write lengthy literary or psychological analyses of the episodes or characters as their introduction to the board. Not being particularly literary myself, I am not able to do that and find it difficult to get into the discussions that follow these posts other than to say "Wow" when I read the depth of the analysis. That said, however, I find that I learn a lot from the posters here and it increases my appreciation of both BtVS and Angel. So I keep plugging away and am occasionally rewarded by glowing responses to some of my posts. :) So, I guess I view the glass as half-full.
And, speaking of learning from the posters, did I miss OnM's review of "Selfless?" That's usually why I log in on the weekends, to read the review.
[>
It's just a feeling that you get when you read it. -- Deeva, 18:51:18 10/26/02 Sat
And for myself, I'll read it twice to make sure that it wasn't someone trying to be witty or just sarcastic but just couldn't nail the right note. I take the stance of not adding fuel to the fire. Oh sure, I'm tempted to post a response of some sort but then I almost always stop and think " Is this really worth it?" More often than not the answer is no.
Also, I'm not a deep thinker like many here. I don't have those epiphany-like moments that let me type lengthy posts about scenes and episodes and the meanings of it all. At best, I can read into metaphors and some of the symbolism on the show. That's not one of my super powers. And I'm cool with that. I guess I do enough drive-by posting that I'm not really a lurker but don't post enough to really be considered a "regular". I propose that there be a new designation for posters more like me. How about "irregular"? I like the wackiness of it.
[> [>
Long live the irregulars! -- celticross, 21:23:49 10/26/02 Sat
I've been posting here for over a year, and I still don't quite feel like a "regular". Mostly because I just read and throw in when I can't help myself (I'm usually a little intimidated). So I'll happily be an APT Irregular with you, Deeva!
[> [> [>
Maybe we could devise a handy numeric scale for depicting the relative degree of irregularity... -- OnM, 06:45:01 10/27/02 Sun
Nahhh.
;-)
[> [> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 06:58:55 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
You scamp, you! -- dub ;o), 08:43:03 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Hmmmm....then I proclaim myself Irregular 3.479! ;-) -- celticross, 09:59:55 10/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
OMG not another numeric scale to remember! -- Deeva, 17:29:34 10/27/02 Sun
I was still trying to memorize the spoiler spoiling numeric scale, OnM.
[> [>
Heh. I think I'll aspire to being an irregular... -- Indri, 23:01:16 10/26/02 Sat
although usually I agree with whatever alcibiades has said, so as long as he/she keeps posting I'm going to feel somewhat redundant.
[> [>
Irregularly yours, -- Dead Soul, 02:26:57 10/27/02 Sun
[> [>
Ooh!! Me, too, me, too. I'm an irregular -- JM, 06:32:50 10/27/02 Sun
We should have weekly meeting, that we often fail to attend, or are sometimes days late for. And strictly applied rankings that we fail to keep track of. And assigned essays that get started but then later stowed away or morphed into something else entirely. Or maybe that's just my own regular life I'm talking about here. No offense to anyone.
See you infrequently on the boards!
[> [> [>
Well, on some of those points I am guilty. -- Deeva, 17:37:05 10/27/02 Sun
The only thing I don't ususally do is be late for stuff. I hate it. I feel like I'm missing out on something. But for the other stuff, I've done it. I've started many essays, assigned or otherwise, that I put off or let them turn into not the intended subject. That or I write so slowly, someone else will have written a great essay/post pretty much saying what I was wanting to say but with probably way less words or bigger, brainier words than I could have managed.
[> [> [>
Re; Sounds like a perfectly normal life to me. -- Deb, 20:14:30 10/27/02 Sun
I make lists and keep a calendar then lose them -- everytime! Finding missing lists has become a method of journaling for me. "Ah yes! I remember this. Three years ago. Eew! I never got around to this and this and this...Ooops got to pay my property tax for 1999.'
[> [>
Irregular? Yeap, that's me! -- Finn Mac Cool, 07:25:56 10/27/02 Sun
[> [>
What's Buffy's address? -- CW, 08:20:47 10/27/02 Sun
You could be the Ravello Street Irregulars (with a wink and a nod toward Sherlock Holmes stories) ;o)
Honestly, some of you folks, who think of yourselves as irregular posters like Deeva, are some of my favorite posters.
[> [> [>
Aw, shucks! Really? -- Deeva, blushing just a little, 17:42:38 10/27/02 Sun
I'm not doing this for the attention. Well, maybe a teensy-tiny bit but not much...really.
[>
Only we could turn an alleged troll incident... -- Wisewoman aka dubdub, 08:46:44 10/27/02 Sun
into the ATP Lovefest that this has become!
Damn, I love this place.
;o)
[>
Jeez, go away for the weekend and all hell breaks loose again. -- Lilac, 15:00:12 10/27/02 Sun
Current board
| More October 2002