August 2002 Archives - Page 9
An announcement -- d'Horrible, 07:33:24 08/15/02 Thu
Some of you may have noticed a certain bellicosity on my part in recent months. I have tried to restrain my inner darkness, but when conversation becomes combat, I cannot be fettered. And until such time as we enlist JBone to once and for all resolve all posting disputes, I am afraid that I will have to give my demon side free rein. Therefore, I am reviving my alternate posting persona from Little Bite's demon thread and will be using it in all situations that might have a hint of conflict. No longer will I even pretend to make any attempt to listen to anyone else's point of view or argument; from now on I will seek immediately to establish my dominance. There will be no more lily-livered statements like, "That's an interesting point, but . . . "; now my responses will consist of declarations like:
I feast on the entrails of your logical argument!
When the going gets demonic, the demonic get tough, I always say.
This has been a reductio ad absurdum. Or has it? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!
[> So, what's your nickname...D'Horb? D'Horrib? -- Rob, 07:56:02 08/15/02 Thu
[> A challenge -- Arethusa, er, Medusa, 07:58:41 08/15/02 Thu
Does this mean I get to jump DisHonorH for using the word "terrific" at the EXACT same time as I did? The nerve of her! My snakes will have their revenge!!!
[> [> Oh, dry up, Snakehead! -- Honorificus (the Mighty and Magnificent), 12:41:44 08/15/02 Thu
And it's "Honorificus." Or, to you, "O Most Pulchritudinous One."
[> [> [> My snakes worship none but Edjo. -- Medusa, 12:52:50 08/15/02 Thu
And an honoraria has to be earned, missy!
[> [> [> [> I *am* the honoraria, Gorgon. -- Honorificus (the Sweet-Smelling Tasty One), 12:56:48 08/15/02 Thu
Look, and adore!
(Hey, quit with the turning me into stone! Meanie!)
[> [> [> [> [> True, being evil is its own reward. -- Medusa, 13:04:22 08/15/02 Thu
I think we might be kindred evil spirits, Honorificus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Wanna go shopping? -- Honorificus (the Fashionable-Yet-Practical), 14:14:57 08/15/02 Thu
Been watching "Angel" reruns, and Darla and Dru's shopping spree in "Reunion" looks like so much *fun*!
I do miss Holland Manners, though. He added that nice touch of class to the show, y'know?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm in--shopping, lunch, mayhem. -- Medusa, 15:13:38 08/15/02 Thu
But I like Linwood, too. Anyone who'd sacrifice his own spawn earns my respect.
[> Bypassing The Hives for the next new thing -- darkenX, 08:39:37 08/15/02 Thu
Alternate posting personality? Brilliant idea. I'm jumping right on this bandwagon. So much better than the flannel shirts I had to wear during the Grunge Era.
the former weak and measly...darren K ; )
[> [> Ooooh like this -- demon's shadow, 09:37:53 08/15/02 Thu
Not a bad idea. If I decide to get really snarky?
And sneer? Instead of deleting or clearing my post before
it is approved - I'll just post it under demon's shadow
LOL!
s'kat
[> [> We are the Monster of the Week -- darkenX, 14:13:24 08/15/02 Thu
Too long have we been observers, explainers, essayists and buyers of small blinking electronic devices.
Finally, it is our turn to stand on the maggot covered corpses of our enemies. To spit in the eye of the world, even as we suck the marrow of its children's bones. We shall be death, the destroyer of worlds...
Does anyone know a good herbal remedy for back pain?
[> [> [> back pain? hives? we're supposed to *inflict* things like that! -- demanom, 21:05:17 08/15/02 Thu
But you could try a herb (horb?) called queen-of-the-meadow for your back. It's supposed to be a relaxant. You can think of it as queen-of-the-damned if that helps. There's also Tension Tamer from Celestial--um, Infernal?--Seasonings.
And meanwhile, stick with the world-destroying--it's better to stay active. Bed rest for back pain has been (could I inflict a more evil pun?) debunked, although sloth certainly remains an important demonic family value.
[> Beware!! -- Whipwoman, 08:40:28 08/15/02 Thu
That's all I'm sayin'...just, BEWARE!!
[> So there will be no warning when the gloves come off? -- Devilish, 09:08:34 08/15/02 Thu
Sounds delicious. Witty repartee sounds much better coming from the tongue of a demon.
Deeva
[> [> fool! that *was* the warning! -- demanom, 20:57:28 08/15/02 Thu
[> Re: An announcement -- Darby, 09:22:09 08/15/02 Thu
I wish that I had that much awareness of when my demon was peeking out and starting to snipe and sneer - I usually figure it out sometime after posting, which means my alternate personality just has to go with the same nomme. No warning, sorry!
- Darby, who on the other hand couldn't come up with a good alterna-name that didn't rip off DarrenK's.
[> [> Your alterna-name, Darby, -- Souless Undead, 09:27:12 08/15/02 Thu
could be d'Herblay. Or maybe it already is....
Souless (and always ready to sow the seeds of confusion and discontent) Undead
[> [> [> Mwahhahaha...cough, hack, cough, wheeze... -- D?b?y, 09:34:58 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: Mwahhahaha...cough, hack, cough, wheeze... -- aliera, 09:56:25 08/15/02 Thu
What about a given name? I did a demonolgy search and nothing looks too good...unless you've got a favorite vice?
regards, aliera
(already the daughter of a demon goddess, lucky me ;-0)
[> Thank god you're at least being honest about it now! : ) -- Masq, whose alternate personality is just a bit grumbly, 09:25:04 08/15/02 Thu
But I have my finger poised on the "ban d'H" button if you go over the edge!
Mwah ha ha ha
: ) : )
[> [> Pardon, your most Voracious Masqificous....... -- zargon, 12:32:20 08/15/02 Thu
but um, the um, well, the "ban d'H button" is um, at the um, cleaners...you, um, someone, um, me, uh spent a lot of time uh eating while holding yourtheir finger over it and got it all um well, there was the rash of goat sacrifices in April remember?
but if you will excuse me from your beatific presence for just um one minute, I will personally run right out and uh retrieve it.....
the humble minion
[> [> Talk to the tentacle! -- d'Horrible, 14:28:32 08/15/02 Thu
The ban d'H button . . . is that all you have? And when that doesn't work, what will you do? Take away my archiving privileges?
Bwahahaha!
[> [> [> OK, just let me know... -- The First Evil, 14:39:26 08/15/02 Thu
Who will be in charge of the ban-anybody-board-janitor position in October, d'Herblay or d'Horrible?
And answer true, because I know you and your evil twin will be in the wise and noble presence of Rahael then....
[> [> [> [> The wise and noble presence ... -- LittleBite, 14:55:09 08/15/02 Thu
...of Rahael? Or perhaps she will be displaced by the all-evil, all the time Azraheal?
Does this make a double date of evil twins?
[> [> [> [> [> Just imagining the permutations . . . -- d'Horrible, 15:12:19 08/15/02 Thu
Every night's a ménage à trois when you're dating someone with multiple personalities. (All of them lovely, of course.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, but manage-a-four? -- The First Evil, 15:51:34 08/15/02 Thu
There is d'Herblay, d'Horrible, Rahel, and Azraheal.
The possibilities are rapidly getting endless...
[> [> [> [> [> [> ...& a variation -- demanom, 21:12:57 08/15/02 Thu
"Every night's a ménage à trois when you're dating someone with multiple personalities."
Oh, at least! And "Every time is like the first time when you have amnesia!"
(from a musical parody I once saw w/a calypso number about a man whose girlfriend lost her memory)
[> Hmmmm...er, I mean, uh... Blood Thirsty Evil Screeching -- fres...Wail, I can't decide, 09:52:09 08/15/02 Thu
Contemplating ATPoBtVS&AtS Mark II, when ATPoBtVS&AtSer attack. If the blood is virtual, will it get past the censors?
And there's the whole Russian novel like sophistication that it will add to the board. Very mysterious and romantic. Anna Karenenenenenenena at the train station and there's virtual smoke everywhere. Tragic in virtually lovely luscious fur. No wait, I'm slipping into Funny Face.
Clearly the Bon Mot police will be coming soon to take away my license to practice wit. I wonder if there will be internet access in my cell.
Can't quite decide which of my personalities would be the evil fresne or what her name would be. The Dark Crystal? Too muppety. Melusine? Too aquatic. Anyway, fire pretty. Tisiphone? Welcome to obscure reference theatre. On the other hand, I already have a scorpion flail. On the other hand, (with this many personalities, I must have a multiplicity of hands, (and given my predilection for photoshopping my costumes, I have the picture to prove it.)) I'm currently working on Persephone and I don't want to mess with that groove. Perhaps, it should just be Clause-ina - when good grammar was never that good to begin with.
Heh, heh, I ended a sentence in a preposition. I can feel the evil welling within me. Yeah, Baby. It's an immoral imperative. Or is that amoral? Or did we already have that discussion? Or if an evil thread fell like a really long time ago in the woods and no one killed a tree printing it out, did it ever really happen? And do evil philosophers wear white turtle necks and upside down Ank necklaces?
[> So is everyone jumping on this bandwagon? will this become a Debattle royale? -- neaux, 10:48:36 08/15/02 Thu
debattle royale.. meaning a debate battle full of hissing and booing..
[> [> Did someone mention hissing? -- Medusa's Snakes, busy watching "Kitten with a Whip", 10:53:55 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> the hissing would come from the sidelines of course.. (more of a background noise effect) -- neaux, 10:55:06 08/15/02 Thu
[> It's about time ... -- LittleBite, 10:58:36 08/15/02 Thu
for our demonic sides to be recognized.
Are you suggesting that the resolution of posting disputes should be a demonic tournament with JBone as Host? Do we have to sing? I say you've never heard anything until you've heard the karaoke version of Stairway to Hell.
[> And all this time I thought you were a d'Herbivore. -- underworld, 11:52:03 08/15/02 Thu
[> So *that's* how things're gonna be, eh? -- Honorificus (the High and Shiny One), 12:37:40 08/15/02 Thu
I was wondering when things would get interesting around here. All this slavish agreement and Mutual Admiration Societies were starting to rub me the wrong way. Everyone's so nice; nobody ever says what they mean.
I look forward to sharpening my teeth on your bones, d'Horrible.
[> [> You'll have to get to them through my flames and fangs first, Mistress DisHonorificus! -- CathSith, KotNoD, 13:17:02 08/15/02 Thu
And if you do ever find those old bones, they'll be nothing but char, 'cause I called first dibs on them a LONG time ago. Besides, it's in the stars. I read it in a prophecy. A wise seer confirmed it. And the tea leaves all agree. d'Horrible is MINE!!!
[> [> [> Don't believe everything you're foretold, honey. -- Honorificus (She-Who-Makes-The-Ground-Tremble), 14:19:33 08/15/02 Thu
Destiny is a fickle thing. Just ask Glorificus (the Mind-Shatteringly Dull One). She was still nattering on about *her* destiny when she got locked in that meat trap, Ben.
[> [> [> Hands off, harpies! He's all mine! -- Azrahael - all evil, all the time, 14:25:21 08/15/02 Thu
Special interests: Eating Spuffyites for breakfast, Campbellites for lunch and Redemptionistas for Dinner!
Motto: Screw Forgiveness!! (tm VampRiley)
[> From now on, for emotional debates, I'm "Finn Mac Manson" -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:29:13 08/15/02 Thu
That's right. Charles has got nothing on me. I am SO going to love cutting loose under this name. I think I'll start by burning all the "Saint Spike" people in oil. And then, I've got plans for some Buffy bashers.
Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
[> [> what? you're passing up "finn mac ghoul"? -- demanom, 21:17:27 08/15/02 Thu
[> check your email, d'Horrible -- JBone - ugh, JBadAss, 15:56:15 08/15/02 Thu
[> So does this mean we've all gone insane? -- JCC grrrrr arrghh!!! (how evil), 16:21:13 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> YES! We're ALL insane!! And we're BORED!! VERY bored!!! yaaarrrggghhhh -- Whipwoman (kee-RACK!), 17:23:08 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> So *this* is what Rerun Heck does to this board . . . n/t -- Honorificus (the Scintillatingly Brilliant One), 17:28:33 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> WW, I'm on deck with my little leather friend I've dubbed "Shiny Niney";-) -- Mr. Nine Tails (temporarily not A8), 17:47:03 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Tsk, tsk. We of the flexible spiked tails pity you poor demons who have to use whips... -- CathSith, who's already got hers, 17:56:16 08/15/02 Thu
Does intent matter pertaining to the sexual assault in SR and what does Buffy really feel for him? -- VHF, 08:35:51 08/15/02 Thu
Early in season 6 Buffy seems to care for Spike, respect him, and trust him. From Smashed up until AYW it is hinted at that Buffy does have feelings for Spike but she shouldn't because he doesn't have a soul. But, it is also hinted at that she only feels some lust for Spike and a lot of loathing and hatred; thus she is just using him as her sex toy. But in Hells Bells she showed real affection, warmth, caring, and respect him. If you were a casual viewer and just watched that episode alone it would be easy to even come to the conclusion that she loves him.
And then in the next episode she is openly snubbing him in front of her friends and saying that he is a vampire that she hates.
One thing that I find funny is that Buffy showed more positive warmth, trust, and regard for Spike in Villains after the AR then in Normal Again thru Seeing Red.
Though this entire 7-episode arc from Smashed to AYW Buffy has told Spike no and promised that she wouldn't have sex with him again. But, when Spike pressured her on the point she always caved, thus her no never was really convince me. Maybe that is why I never bought her brake up with him in AYW because she had cried wolf one to many times. I truly thought that they were going to be caught having sex again in Entropy after the misleading promo as was the vast majority of people trying to stay unspoiled.
I don't think anyone can say definitively what the hell Buffy feels toward Spike or what she wants or doesn't want from him.
Which IMO is why the AR is so easy for me to forgive. ME did not convince me that his intention was to rape Buffy. And they can say it doesn't matter because that's what ended up almost happening. To me that is bullsh*t of course intentions matter. Xander's intention wasn't to kill a bunch of people in OMWF by summing the demon but that's what ended up happening. And he wasn't punished at all, thus intention does matter.
How would people feel if Spike tried to turn her or came the conclusion he was going to get back at the bitch for using him by raping her and he tried to do it with a smile on his face?
If ME really wanted to convince me that Spike could only be evil without a soul then that would be incredibly more effective then showing Spike conflicted about what Buffy wants, trying to give her what he thinks she wants, and being truly horrified when she kicks him off her, thus finding out that she really didn't want it.
[>Does intent matter pertaining to the sexual assault in SR and what does Buffy really feel for him? -- Earl Allison, 09:38:38 08/15/02 Thu
How far does that intent go, and how much intent was needed?
Did Spike enter the house meaning to rape Buffy? Most likely not. But that's what he ultimately tried to do -- what SPIKE tried to do, the same Spike that claimed to love her, and the same Spike that said he would never hurt her.
It's not like Xander-Hyena from "The Pack," who was possessed. This was the same Spike that was supposedly evolving and changing throughout Season 5 and 6.
Buffy made it extremely clear to Spike that their relationship was over as of "As You Were," and stuck to her metaphorical guns consistently therafter.
Spike at the very least entered the bathroom (indeed, the house) unbidden. And as others have pointed out, you do NOT confront a woman in the bathroom -- it simply isn't proper -- something the normally-perceptive Spike should have known better about.
You're right, no one can conclusively claim any knowledge of Buffy's true feelings, but I do take issue with a portion of your comments, that Buffy's past behavior led to a pattern ...
Why?
Because I could say the same of Spike. He's shown a propensity for violence, and not too long ago threatened to kill Buffy ("Crush") or let Drusilla do it (same difference).
And no matter what, Buffy NEVER sobbed and pleaded before, that was new, and something that should have clued Spike in, assuming he wasn't too far gone in misery and despair, that she WASN'T meaning yes as she pleaded no.
Personally, I think the entire "no means yes" aspect of the season was a bad one. I don't care how you portray it, it just seems ... wrong, to me.
Now, before someone lambasts me again for that (as happened before a few weeks back), please reread what I said.
I did NOT say sex is bad.
I DID say the "no means yes" game is a dangerous one.
Big difference.
As to the topic -- it depends a lot on what you wanted to see. If you were already predisposed to be pro "good" Spike, you saw the issue one way. If you were predisposed to be against Spike as reformed, you might interpret it differently.
I think there were two problems here.
One was execution. All. Season. Long. What we saw seemed drastically different in some cases from what the writers allegedly wanted us to see,
The second, and this is strictly my opinion, is that as soon as the writers decided they wanted Spike/JM as a regular, canon and logical behavior was bent (into a pretzel sometimes!) to accomodate the character, and some of the writers either forgot to portray Spike as evil, or changed their minds AFTER showing too many rehabilitating Spike moments -- that was the problem.
Me, I'm a purist/evilista/whatever comment is in this week, and I always remembered that Spike was an unrepentant mass murderer as he had originally been presented, so I had more issues with his allegedly reforming than I did with the backsliding and evil acts -- so I'm more likely to not forgive Spike's actions in "Seeing Red," but that's me.
I can understand where some would let it go, even if I don't personally agree.
What I DO take issue with is this;
If all of Spike's evil acts should be washed away because of his shiny new soul (a la Angel), shouldn't that apply to any good acts as well? After all, souled Spike should be an entirely different entity from pre-souled Spike -- why should he get credit for anything if his negative acts are washed away (if you take that viewpoint, that is)?
I say it pointedly because that's what I hear a lot -- Spike with soul means you can't hold his bad acts against him. Okay, but you can't reward or credit him for the good acts, either -- so best-case, souled Spike is entirely different, and if I'm lucky, whatever Buffy saw in pre-souled Spike is gone in souled Spike (yay! no more B/S!).
I'm evil, I admit it.
Take it and run.
[> [>Artuculating My opinions exactly! Nice! "And the Twinky made me do it!" Just doesn't cut it. -- Majin Gojira, 11:59:34 08/15/02 Thu
[>Attempted Rape has No Excuse -- Dochawk, 12:24:36 08/15/02 Thu
If Spike were human and facing true justice he would be guilty of aggravated assault and aggrevated rape. He'd be in jail for 20 years. No ifs, ands or buts. NOTHING Buffy did provoked that attack. She had been saying NO for 7 episodes and sticking to it. (he would have been just as guilty if this had been the day after As You Were). Most of the great cads in the world are charming, good looking guys who use their abilities for their selfish means, just like Spike (I know I promised not to respond to anymore SPike posts, but the AR topic bothers me, because I have treated women who have gone through this and its much more devestating to most women then Buffy showed and I wish the writers had used a less powerful metaphor if they weren't going to truly deal with the consequences).
And Earl, I had never thought of the "soul" wiping out both positive and negative behaviors. I don't think it should do either, but you are definitely correct. And didn't we just watch a whole season of people with souls being evil, who says that Spike is coming back good? ot that a soul means anything except that he has a choice now to be a "man".
[> [>Even in legal cases, there's always discussion of mitigating circumstances -- Caesar Augustus, 16:44:00 08/15/02 Thu
[> [>And beating your boyfriends face in would not get 20 years in jail? -- VHF, 17:41:12 08/15/02 Thu
Wait, he is just a soulless inhuman thing. Thus, whatever Buffy does to him by that logic is ok and whatever Spike does to her is equally ok.
[> [> [>This argument is starting to sound very familiar. -- Medusa, 17:54:05 08/15/02 Thu
A while ago we had a poster here who obsessively brought up the DT beating to hammer home his point-that Buffy was an evil bitca and Spite was a poor, victimized little serial killer. Okay, the serial killer part is mine. But still-we went round and round to no avail,` until everyone was bored stiff. We get it. Buffy bad, Spike good, yadda yadda. Now stop bashing Buffy or I'll sic my snakes on you.
[> [> [> [>Sure, it's the "tried-and-true" tear X down to make Spike look good argument ... -- Earl Allison, 17:57:28 08/15/02 Thu
Medusa,
You handled it great! And without the venom I would have used, thanks a lot for putting it so well :)
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>Thanks, Earl. And the snakes keep hogging the venom. -- Medusa, 17:59:26 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [>If Spike was human, she wouldn't have hit him -- Dochawk, 18:39:47 08/15/02 Thu
Even in the case of Faith, Buffy went out of her way to make sure it was a fair fight. Buffy makes the distinction between vampire and human, and so would not have given Spike the kind of beating he deserved if he was human. So no, they are not equivilant situations and no Buffy wouldn't have gotten 20 years.
[> [> [> [>Spike wouldn't have gotten 20 years for the AR because he isn't human. -- VHF, 19:25:29 08/15/02 Thu
It goes both ways. You are saying she can do anything she wants to him because he is a soulless creature, yet he can't do anything to her.
[> [> [> [> [>The Law on Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:10:03 08/15/02 Thu
Actually, I think there are laws on vampires. The law in the supernatural world is given out by the strongest person, whether demon or human. Buffy is the strongest force in Sunnydale, effectively making her the law where demons, like Spike, are concerned. Beating up Spike represents abuse of power by the law rather than breaking the law.
[> [> [> [>Re: If Spike hadn't ask for it (literally) she wouldn't have kept hitting him. -- Just George, 21:04:14 08/15/02 Thu
To make the sequence of events clear, here are the stage directions leading up to the beating; from the Dead Things transcript, via Psyche and Joan the English Chick:
* Buffy starts to walk toward the alley mouth. Spike grabs her arm.
* Buffy hauls off and punches him in the face. Spike goes flying back into a couple of garbage cans, against the wall of the next building.
* She starts to leave again but Spike is suddenly behind her, in vamp-face. He grabs her and again throws her to the ground farther up the alley.
* She attacks him. He blocks a couple of punches but then she gets in and hits him in the stomach.
Spike initiated the physical confrontation. Buffy tried to turn away, but Spike pushed it. This leads to the crux of the interchange. Full text and stage directions this time:
Buffy: "You can't understand why this is killing me, can you?"
Spike: "Why don't you explain it?"
She hits him a few more times. He takes it, not fighting back.
Spike: "Come on, that's it, put it on me. Put it all on me." She kicks him. "That's my girl."
Spike invites Buffy to release her feelings by hitting him. I think Spike knows that fighting would make him feel better. He bet it would make Buffy feel better too. He's wrong. Just like he's wrong all those time he says Buffy belongs in the dark with him. Buffy's right when she says he can't understand her.
This is conjecture, but I expect that if Spike had told Buffy "stop" instead of "That's my girl" she would have stopped.
I still hold Buffy responsible for beating Spike. She is an adult. However, Spike asked for this hurt the same way he asked for most of the other hurts she gave him over the years. Because I think Spike would rather Buffy was hitting him than ignoring him.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: If Spike hadn't ask for it (literally) she wouldn't have kept hitting him. -- Vickie, 22:29:31 08/15/02 Thu
Spike would rather Buffy was hitting him than ignoring him.
Oh, yes! You are sooooo right! Anything is better than not existing to the one you love.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: If Spike hadn't ask for it (literally) she wouldn't have kept hitting him. -- Just George, 08:03:46 08/16/02 Fri
My wife describes Spike as an "attention junky". She sees him as acting, consciously or subconsciously, to become the center of attention.
I think of Spike as an "intensity junky". He acts to ramp up the emotional intensity of a situation, regardless of the fallout.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: If Spike hadn't ask for it (literally) she wouldn't have kept hitting him. -- Miss Edith, 04:58:37 08/17/02 Sat
Spike was asking for a beating no question. Buffy smacked him around in the heat of the moment. Whilst not one of her best moments it was understandable as she was in a really bad place right than. What concerned me was the following episode when Spike brought up the beating and Buffy had no reaction, not even a facial twitch. Rather she thretens to beat him again. Wasn't sure why the writers included that as it made her seem rather cold to me. I agree though constantly bringing up other characters to build up another isn't really relevent. If there is a discussion on Spikes AR we should concentrate on that and not try to validate his actions by saying Buffy has made mistakes too. Not really the point IMO.
[> [> [>There's a fallacy in this argument. No, there are several fallacies. -- HonorH, 19:49:38 08/15/02 Thu
The first fallacy is that whatever Buffy does to Spike justifies what he does to her.
The second is that Spike frankly consented to the beating. He all but asked for it--"Lay it all on me"--and didn't fight back at all. Afterward, while Buffy was horrified, he actually smiled and said, "You always hurt the ones you love." He never held it against her afterward. Compare that behavior to Buffy's before, during, and after the attempted rape.
The third is that the attempted rape was a betrayal of Buffy's trust. She doesn't trust him enough to love him, but there is a certain level of trust you have to have even to be near someone else. Among other things, a woman must trust a man not to try and rape her. Spike went over that line. Way over. He betrayed Buffy utterly.
There is one parallel: the DT beating and the SR attempted rape were Buffy and Spike's worst moments, respectively, and they showed vividly how unhealthy this relationship was.
[> [> [> [>Re: There's a fallacy in this argument. No, there are several fallacies. -- Darby, 20:09:50 08/15/02 Thu
I don't think that Spike "betrayed Buffy utterly." I think that subsequent actions by Buffy, including trying to leave Dawn with Spike, show that Buffy on retrospect must have realized that their dysfunctional relationship - and contributions from both sides - contributed to the bathroom incident. And I don't see a victim claiming false fault; we've all been shown a pattern of "no means yes" and "sex isn't love, but it'll do" (I see the scene as being a desperate attempt at getting love rather than sex)that got Spike to a point where, yeah, he should have stopped, no doubt, but the early markers were all set pointing the wrong way from past behavior.
I believe that many viewers will have much more trouble forgiving Spike than Buffy will. I also expect that she'll still use his act as a typical bludgeon against him, but her actions will speak more for her feelings than her words (and that's what Spike got from her, too).
[> [> [> [>So why on Earth did she take Dawn to his crypt the next day and was clearly missing him? -- VHF, 20:37:00 08/15/02 Thu
How Buffy reacted to the AR is very different then how people think Buffy should have reacted to the attempted rape.
The attempted rape didn't seem to change her feelings or even her trust of Spike as shown in Villains. And, it wasn't the chip she trusted to protect Dawn. Even with the chip he could still get another vampire to kill her for him.
And she was clearly sad he left town, and even asked when he would return. So I fear there is a disconnect between how people feel about the AR and how Buffy feels about it.
[> [> [> [> [>Which point are you arguing again? -- Earl Allison, 02:36:31 08/16/02 Fri
From your original thread-starting post:
"I don't think anyone can say definitively what the hell Buffy feels toward Spike or what she wants or doesn't want from him."
You then write above:
"How Buffy reacted to the AR is very different then how people think Buffy should have reacted to the attempted rape.
The attempted rape didn't seem to change her feelings or even her trust of Spike as shown in Villains. And, it wasn't the chip she trusted to protect Dawn. Even with the chip he could still get another vampire to kill her for him.
And she was clearly sad he left town, and even asked when he would return. So I fear there is a disconnect between how people feel about the AR and how Buffy feels about it."
So, which is it? Are Buffy's intentions unknown, or are you now telling us what they were, as far as you were concerned?
And quite frankly, what most people have addressed here are your contentions that Buffy's actions and Spike's intent somehow potentially mitigated the attempted rape, and your smokescreen about how Buffy's attack in "Dead Things" (totally irrelevant to the topic you originally brought up) either made Spike's behavior just as acceptable (or Buffy's just as unacceptable, same difference) or shows that Buffy was bad too, so what was the harm?
That is what most people have addressed.
Now, as to your point;
Was there a seeming-disconnect? Yes, there was. But given the whiplash of watching characters behave one way, then another, and given the fact that Buffy was worried about stopping Willow, who knows?
Now, SHOULD it have mattered? IMHO, yes, but then, I was advocating Buffy staking Spike several times after he was chipped, and it never happened, so who knows? IITS (It's In The Script). Maybe it was the only way the writers could think of to establish to Buffy and the others that Spike was gone (conjecture, admittedly).
We won't know until Season Seven one way or the other.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Also Dawn needed to be with Clem since supposedly only Demons (or witches) could find Rack -- Dochawk, 13:47:58 08/19/02 Mon
Doesn't explain Buffy's apparant disappointment with finding Spike gone. Perhaps it was just frustration for still having the Dawn problem to deal with?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>On the Crypt Scene -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:38:18 08/19/02 Mon
Many people have commented about the crypt scene where Buffy goes looking for Spike to guard Dawn. Some have interpreted it as being a failure, since it treats Spike's attempted rape too lightly. Others claim it's a sign that Buffy cares for him and is willing to forgive what happened.
However, I'd like to point out something: Buffy entrusted Spike with the safety of her family before in "Checkpoint". Buffy didn't know Spike loved her at this point, and he had even tried to kill her earlier in the season, and there wasn't even the camaradarie between Spike and Dawn until later. Yet Buffy went to Spike to protect Joyce and Dawn, because a)he was incapable of hurting them directly, and b)if he let something happen to them, Buffy would kill him. While the attempted rape meant Buffy couldn't trust Spike's love of her to hold his vampiric tendencies at bay, she still trusted the chip and Spike's desire not to end up a pile of dust.
Now, as for Buffy's expression when she found out that Spike was gone, I think I can explain that. For over a year, Spike had been mooning over Buffy, pledging his love to her, worshipping the ground she walked on. Whether or not you love the person, it feels incredibly good to have someone so totally devoted to you. Plus, his absence meant she had one less ally at a time when events were spiraling out of control.
[> [> [>20 years in jail? For a domestic squabble? -- Malandanza, 10:59:57 08/16/02 Fri
Buffy wouldn't have gotten 20 years for beating Spike, even if he were treated as a human instaed of a souless killer. How many domestic disputes end with a warning or a restraining order? Murder and rape get 20 years, not beating your boyfriend/girlfriend. Many of these offenders are lucky to spend a single night in jail.
In Buffy's case, I doubt very much that any formal charges would have been pressed. Spike's stalker history of Season Five and abusive treatment of Buffy this season would easily convince the jury that Buffy is a victim who was reasserting her independence to escape a controlling and abusive boyfriend.
[> [> [>Re: And beating your boyfriends face in would not get 20 years in jail? -- Q, 23:26:27 08/17/02 Sat
A lot of Spuffy 'shippers like to bring up the beating Spike took in DT to somehow rationalize the sexual assault in SR. And then people try to defend Buffy's physical assault while condemning Spikes sexual assault in return.
To me, the point is that both assaults are HORRIBLE. Neither one can "rationalize" the other, because 2 wrongs don't a right make, and both were just plain sickening!
Anyway, the point is, the relationship itself is devastatingly unhealthy, and BOTH partners are to blame. So bringing up the assault in DT does not support a Spuffy relationship. It damns it by bringing up another horribly negative aspect of this relationship. These two bring out the worst in EACH OTHER.
[>Re: Does intent matter? -- Marginal Drifter, 15:20:42 08/15/02 Thu
In order for what Spike did in SR to be seen as anything less than attempted rape, he would genuinely have had to believe that Buffy was consenting. And I don't mean that she wanted it - hey, people are animals, they want sex all the time, they find themselves sexually attracted to people all the time, that doesn't mean that they're willing to do it all the time. Desire or animal instinct doesn't count as consent.
Past sexual history doesn't let him off the hook either. Yes, there had been situations in the past where Buffy would reject Spike, Spike would fondle/grope her and she'd cave in. Yes, I believe that the sexual assault scene in SR began like this. But it's different. It's different because on past occasions Buffy gave in to him. Whether she felt him back or whether she stopped trying to resist him, she gave in, and he knew that she was consenting. This time she didn't. This time she pushed his hands away, not in the half-hearted, vague way she had before but promptly and quickly. This time she said "no". Over and over again. This time she begged him to stop. Over and over again. He *knew_she_wasn't_consenting* before she kicked him off and still he tried to physically overpower her and have sex with her, and that makes it attempted rape, regardless of how he thought she felt for him, regardless of how horrified he was even seconds afterwards.
Rape is a basic intent offence, it doesn't have to be premeditated. Yes, I know Spike didn't go to Buffy's house with the intent of raping her, yes I know he didn't try to rape her out of malice, yes I know he never wanted to hurt her. Yes, knowing that makes me not hate him and just feel disappointed instead. It doesn't matter. What he did was still wrong and blameworthy and Buffy has still been violated and traumatised. Rape is rape. The end.
[> [>What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Rook, 15:41:37 08/15/02 Thu
Ok...I understand that what Spike did is Attempted Rape...the force is pretty clear.
But, what Warren was doing to Katrina, mind control, wa also attempted Rape, I think most people would agree. So was what Willow did to Tara attempted rape? Her purpose may not have been strictly sexual, but it was to force her to stay in the relationship on Willow's terms.
So I guess my question is how does what Spike did compare with what Willow and Warren did?
[> [> [>Re: What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Marginal Drifter, 16:41:02 08/15/02 Thu
I guess this raises the issue "When is consent not consent?" and I believe the answer to be when it's a result of fraud or duress.
What Warren did to Katrina was rape because he obtained consent by duress - he did that thing with that thingy ( I haven't seen DT in ages) that made her consent, she didnt' do it of her own free will, it wasn't really consent, he knew this. Rape.
Fraud is harder. I'm going to cheat and use something I heard in one of the few lectures I paid attention to last year - which was that consent obtained by deception doesn't count as rape unless the victim is deceived as to the nature of the act (ie, they don't think what they are doing is sexual intercourse) or the identity of the person. (Faith sleeping with Riley when he thought she was Buffy would count in this instance).
But does what Willow did, covering up a wrong thing she did so that Tara would think she "deserves" her consent count as lying about her identity? I don't know. And I have to go offline but I am sooooo gonna think about an answer to this one.....Keep you posted?
[> [> [> [>Re: What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Marginal Drifter, 14:15:04 08/16/02 Fri
So I thought and I though for ages and in the end I compared what Willow did to Tara in making her forget about their fight to what Parker did to Buffy at the beginning of S4 by misleading her about where their "relationship" was heading.
Did that count as rape? I don't think so, and I think that is ultimately because Buffy was still given a choice. So while being dishonest about your intentions or your background in order to get someone to consent is very wrong, as long as they are given a choice at the end of the day I wouldn't consider it rape. I would still consider the whole lying about your identity (ie, pretending to be another real person known to the victim) as rape because you're not letting someone make their own judgements about whether or not they'd like to sleep with you, you're "stealing" the judgement they've made about someone else. Does that make sense? Probably not, I'm not known for my coherance.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Malandanza, 00:29:25 08/17/02 Sat
"So I thought and I though for ages and in the end I compared what Willow did to Tara in making her forget about their fight to what Parker did to Buffy at the beginning of S4 by misleading her about where their "relationship" was heading. Did that count as rape? I don't think so, and I think that is ultimately because Buffy was still given a choice. So while being dishonest about your intentions or your background in order to get someone to consent is very wrong, as long as they are given a choice at the end of the day I wouldn't consider it rape. I would still consider the whole lying about your identity (ie, pretending to be another real person known to the victim) as rape because you're not letting someone make their own judgments about whether or not they'd like to sleep with you, you're "stealing" the judgment they've made about someone else."
In Guise Will Be Guise on AtS, Wesley impersonates Angel and ends up having sex with Virginia -- lying about his identity. The initial good impression she formed of him when she thought he was a mysterious, brooding vampire with a soul led to the sex -- if she had known he was Angel's errand boy, the relationship would have developed more slowly or not at all. It's Parkeresque behavior, but I'd have a hard time calling this rape (or Faith's impersonation of Buffy).
What Willow did goes beyond mere impersonation -- I don't see much difference in what Warren did to Katrina and what Willow did to Tara. Warren lacked Willow's subtlety, but he had had a prior relationship with Katrina. If Warren had wiped from Katrina's memory the day that April went on her rampage, would you still consider it rape? Katrina had voluntarily had sex with Warren and, except for the sexbot, would likely have continued to do so. He could've pick up where they left off -- but it would still have been rape.
In a very real sense, Willow stole Tara's judgment. There just isn't a real world parallel for surgically removing a girlfriend's angry memories -- turning her into a Stepford girlfriend. Edit out the parts you don't like, like Warren did with April (except that April was a machine, not a living, breathing human being he purported to love).
I also think that ME intended for Willow's behavior to be seen in a worse light than it generally is. Tara's "violation" came during the date-rape episode, All the Way and was paralleled by the Warren/Katrina fiasco. Willow also had quite a large supply of Lethe's Bramble on hand and demonstrated a willingness to use it again (as we saw in Tabula Rasa). Willow's surprise in TR when Tara uses the word "violate" matches the surprise of Jonathan and Andrew when Katrina says "rape." The fight in TR between Willow and Tara could easily have been written for an abusive alcoholic/abuser relationship:
TARA: I don't think this is working.
WILLOW: Hey. It is. It's working.
Willow crouches down by Tara, trying to catch her eye.
WILLOW (cont'd): Tara, please. I need you baby. I need you. I don't need magic. I don't. Let me prove it to you, okay? I'll go a month without using magic. I won't do a single spell, I swear.
Tara looks at her, her face expressionless, considering.
TARA: Go a week. A week without magic.
WILLOW(soothing): Fine, fine. That's easy.
Just replace "magic" with alcohol and "spell" with drink -- and Willow is off the wagon just as quickly as the cliche alcoholic. The very next day she's using magic to erase Tara and Buffy's memories.
Maybe it wasn't rape, but it was very wrong. Tara returning to Willow after that shows the triumph of romance over good judgment (at least Tara didn't run over to Willow's room the next day, like Buffy did with Spike after the AR), but I have to wonder whether Tara would have had suspicions, had she not died, and questioned whether she was back with Willow entirely of her own free will.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Miss Edith, 05:15:40 08/17/02 Sat
Agreed. Willow did not just mislead he girlfriend about her intentions. She deliberately removed memeries which is an incrediable violation. Tara compared it to what Glory did and specifically said she felt violated. The book in OMWF says Willow's spell was "mind control" suggesting Willow was abusive and trying to control her girlfriend.
Willow has never expressed remorse for this which worries me. She apologises in TR but immediately ignores Tara's wishes and again tries to reinvent Tara's memeries. In Smashed whilst talking to Amy the rat she claims Tara left her for "no good reason". Her behaviour is never really dealt with following Willow's power issues being changed to an addiction. Tara just waits for Willow to go clean and stop using magic. The prior behaviouir is not to my recollection dealt with.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: What exactly constitutes Rape? -- Sheri, 13:45:25 08/17/02 Sat
You know, I never really thought of All the Way as being about date-rape (well, at least the Dawn portions of the episode). I think the vampboy's pressuring of Dawn to let him turn her because he thinks she's pretty cool falls under the misguided notion that sex=love.
At this point in Dawn's life, she is feeling ignored and unloved. Her wish to be loved by someone/anyone makes her vulnerable because it allows her to ignore the consequences. Losing her virginity before she is ready/being turned into a vampire doesn't seem so bad because the vampire/horny teenage boy that she is with is offering what for the moment feels like love. So while it is manipulative to the extreme for vampboy to tell Dawn that she should be open to being vamped (i.e. having sex) because he likes her (and thus subtly threatening to stop liking her if she does not give in), I would not call it date-rape.
The spell that Willow placed on Tara, OTOH, would definately fall under the category of rape. Like Warren's thing-a-majig that he used on Katrina, Willow's spell essentially acted like a Roofie, causing Tara to act in a way that she wouldn't normally have. ***Lame and awkward analogy warning*** I really don't see any difference between the spell and if Willow had simply bonked Tara over the head in hopes of causing short term amnesia and getting her nooky that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>The shooting script is a little more explicit -- Malandanza, 21:46:31 08/17/02 Sat
"You know, I never really thought of All the Way as being about date-rape (well, at least the Dawn portions of the episode). I think the vampboy's pressuring of Dawn to let him turn her because he thinks she's pretty cool falls under the misguided notion that sex=love"
I think AtW was set up to be a classic date rape situation -- an inexperienced young girl trying to appear more mature than she is allows herself to be taken to a secluded spot by a much more experienced guy -- her family has know idea where she is and, since she isn't old enough to drive, she might not even know how to get back by herself. All the power is his and all she can do is make a few feeble protests, which he ignores. Then there's the commentary in the shooting script which has the subtlety of Warren's orbs:
Things quickly heat up again. Justin's hands begin to migrate toward second base. Dawn catches his hand, eases it back down. More kissing, more hand creepage.
DAWN (cont'd) Justin, can we just. . .
JUSTIN: Sorry. It's just. . . God, you are so beautiful . . .
Dawn is stunned -- and totally swept away. She kisses him softly, but quickly gives in to teen desire. Justin's breath comes in ragged gasps as the kissing and touching heats to volcanic levels. His face VAMPS.
Dawn, her eyes closed as they continue kissing, doesn't notice. But as the make out session continues, her hand roams up to his face -- and freeze as it encounters that unmistakable bulge. Her eyes crash open in terror.
Then there's struggling, kicking and screaming, which is enough to convince me that there was no consent. Okay, so Dawn is foolish for allowing herself to be put into such a position, that wouldn't have excused Justin's actions -- as Giles points outs in this scene:
JANICE: He bit me! That jerk bit me!
ZACK (O.S.): Like you weren't asking for it.
Zack appears at the top of the embankment. His head's bleeding from getting cracked with the flashlight. Not a happy vamp. Giles stands, ready to bring on the hurt.
GILES: I'm fairly certain she wasn't.
[>Board Archives -- Sophist, 08:36:15 08/16/02 Fri
Rumor has it that certain especially evil denizens of this Board spend lots of time archiving previous threads. Those who are interested can read many thoughtful posts on this topic in the thread which begins here
[> [>Ditto - check the archives mentioned in Sophist's post for mine as well. -- shadowkat, 10:48:05 08/16/02 Fri
You can also read my thoughts in my S&M post above
which lightly touches on it.
All roads lead to Buffy -- Sophist, 09:31:24 08/15/02 Thu
Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm a big baseball fan. I haunt a baseball site called baseballprimer.com. As is true here, the discussions frequently wander. For example, Stephen Jay Gould is well known and often discussed there.
Anyway, a moderately well-known former player died recently and there is a long discussion thread about his death that includes religion, creationism, the Beatles, and other irrelevant but interesting points. At some point along the way, some troll threw in a comment, in response to nothing at all, to the effect that "Buffy sucks". Three posters then responded that OMWF was one of the greatest hours in television history, that JW was God, and (even more of a compliment to a true baseball fan) that JW was the Barry Bonds of TV shows.
[>Re: -- aliera, 10:13:44 08/15/02 Thu
Thanks for the website rec, and...since we're OT already any favorite baseball authors, books (I know movies are too easy)? My favorite baseball book ever was one where they took a meaningless midsummer game and broke it down pitch by pitch and play by play. I really felt like I was inside the heads of the players. We're lucky enough to have an independent league team in Albany and now a A team(finally again since they were silly enough to chase the yankees AA team away a few years ago)I know the level of baseball is very different but it's so great to stop over after work, walk right in and hang out so close to the field that you can see every expression on the players faces. One summer we were able to go to almost every home game. Bliss.
aliera, very gratefully wandering
[> [>Baseball books -- Sophist, 10:56:21 08/15/02 Thu
If you can follow numbers even a little, Bill James's Historical Baseball Abstract is wonderful. The first one (published about 1987) contains fascinating historical notes from all eras -- uniform styles, nicknames, ethnic issues, etc. He has a recent one out, but it's very heavy into numbers. The first one can be enjoyed even if you skip the numbers altogether. Of course, if you do like the numbers, all the better.
You're lucky to have a minor league team in town. They're great to watch.
[> [>Re:baseball books -- DEN, 11:12:43 08/15/02 Thu
Aliera--would that be Today's Game? Or is there another like that one? And have you read Long Gone, or seen the HBO-type movie?
[> [> [>Re: -- aliera, 14:46:58 08/15/02 Thu
DEN: No, on those. Good?
And Sophist: Albany is close to Cooperstown too!
I know from reading some of the movie posts here, some of my tastes are pretty low-brow; but, since I also know it would further offend D'Horrible, in deference to him I won't apologize in advance. I grew up in Cinci from 71-78(I know, the immaturity is misleading; I'm quite ancient) and saw many, many games at that stadium and the Jake in Cleveland. But my favorite game was at the Louisville stadium two years ago with Cinci's AAA (the Riverbats!OMG)team with Bruce Chen as one of the starting pitchers. He had a good game and I snuck into the seats behind home plate and felt like I was right on top of the field, there's nothing like it - I'm usually awfully law abiding, tho'. My Dad is from a little town in Ohio called Huron and the Indians were his boyhood team and he loves to talk baseball. My brother too even though he's stuck out east also. Dad caught in college on scholarship although he used the scholarship to become a engineer(he's wearing a black armband for the Tribe this year and since I love him I try not bring up too much baseball especially references to NY which drive him mad). When I grew up we all played...well I played softball. Lest you get the wrong idea, my sister played short and batted third (she was also blond and did cheerleading); I was brunette and very tiny and played right and batted ninth. I know what it's like to have a good eye, only because I lived for walks; and out in the field on the rare occasion something was hit to me, although catching it was a statistical and physical impossibility, I liked to avoid getting hit in the head with it. Since the shortstop and I shared a bedroom, it's not like I got to go home and forget about it. Guess that explains the reading, because despite the embarrassment and being born in the wrong body, I loved this game.
Don't think badly of me; but I think it was (from a scoring website):
Hernandez, Keith and Mike Bryan. 1994. Pure Baseball. HarperPerennial, New York, New York. 259 pages. -- A complete, pitch by pitch analysis of two baseball games by future Hall of Fame player Keith Hernandez. While not technically about scoring baseball, the book contains completed scorecards for the games being discussed and you can learn a lot about scoring, strategy, and why scoring baseball is useful from this book. My scorecards are based on the scorecards in the back of this book. (from website author)
The book that always first comes to mind is George Will's Men at Work which again puts me right in with the run-of-the mill, sigh...but I still like it.
Masq, I apologize in advance because there is not even a gratuitous Buffy reference below, so please delete if you want.
Interview by Danny Strickland, 11 years old, July 2001 from dannyskidspage.com, edited slightly to remove non-baseball refs:
Stricker: How did you become a writer?
Will: : I think writers like to write. So I've always enjoyed writing and I went through college and I went to graduate school and I got a Ph.D intending to do what my father did, which was to be a college professor, which I was briefly. Then I went to work on the senate staff in Washington and after three years of that I decided I'd rather write a column so I started a column.
Stricker: How many books have you written?
Will: : Eleven I think. Nine on politics and two on baseball.
Stricker: Which book that you've written is your favorite?
Will: That's a tough one. The one that sold the best and that most people know is my first baseball book called Men at Work, The Craft of Baseball. That's I think the best selling baseball book ever written. I also like the book of mine called Statecraft as Soulcraft. Those would be my two favorites.
Stricker: What was your favorite book when you were a kid?
Will: : A book by Garth Garreau called Batboy of the Giants. It was a true story about a young man who was a batboy for the New York Giants. This was before they moved to San Francisco in 1958.
Stricker: Who is your favorite baseball player?
Will: Of all time? Ernie Banks. I grew up in Champaign, Illinois which is about 125 miles south of Chicago and I was a Cubs fan. He was the only good player on the team when I was growing up.
Stricker: What do you do for fun?
Will: I go to baseball games. And I read novels. Everybody should read for fun. That's the only way you get smart.
Stricker: Who has been your most interesting interview?
Will: In baseball my most interesting interview was Tony Gwynn who I interviewed as the hitter in my book Men at Work.
Stricker: Where do you get your ideas for what to write about?
Will: Well the world irritates me twice a week. I write two columns a week for the newspapers and one every other week for Newsweek. That's five columns every two weeks and I find that the world is so interesting and often so aggravating that I have no trouble finding what to write about.
Stricker: What one thing that you do makes you successful?
Will: I think its because I love what I'm doing. There are some jobs you just can't do well unless you really love what you're doing and I think writing is one of them because its hard work and you're not going to do the hard work unless its fun. That and the fact that I read all the time. I hate to keep coming back to that but that's the secret of success in life is to read. The world belongs to people that know things and the way you know things is by reading.
...and then there's baseball, and dogs, and chocolate and roses, and myth and Buffy, and....
[> [> [> [>Not offended, but scenting blood . . . -- d'Horrible, 14:56:57 08/15/02 Thu
I grew up in Cinci from 71-78(I know, the immaturity is misleading; I'm quite ancient) and saw many, many games at that stadium and the Jake in Cleveland.
Of course, Jacobs Field was not built until 1994. Before that, the Indians played at Municipal Stadium, a venue that, trust me, only a demon could love. I suck the marrow from the bones of your fond childhood memories! Bwahahaha!
[> [> [> [> [>Re: Not offended, but scenting blood . . . -- aliera, 16:21:29 08/15/02 Thu
Probably true, D'H, that should have read many games at Riverfront from 71-78, unfortunately my junior year we then did a GE company move to Albany.
Only one game at the Jake (but behind the visitors dugout which oddly is down the right field line)during a trip I mentioned to Louisville a couple of years ago. We drove scenic tour north through Cleveland. And then south through Ohio to Louisville. And then back east through PA and saw Falling Waters which was also grand.
My uncles father actually has the box, having got it originally during a time when no one wanted tickets, which time I think my Dad fears may come again. My Dad and my uncle kindly offered the seats to my son and I for the game, although I'm sure they would have understood the subleties better; but both Ben and I really loved it. Although as I mentioned, I like the smaller fields and the atmosphere of the minor league and independent leagues better; there's no denying the excitement of a crowd. But overall, I'm pretty happy with what's in Albany.
Hope that helps. I don't claim to have any expertise (or need to mislead) in baseball, dogs, myth or Buffy...I just enjoy them.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Ahhh! A few years ago when the Jake was the place to be! All clear now! -- d'Herblay, 16:37:37 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>And not only is the point now clear, this season, the Jake is pretty much all clear too! -- d'Horrible, 17:20:53 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: And not only is the point now clear, this season, the Jake is pretty much all clear too! -- aliera, 18:14:00 08/15/02 Thu
Yes, and then we're going to get into some of the reasons I'm not watching as much this year...
I posted the last in haste as I was trying to get out of the office around 7pm, I was trying to say that my errors are ones of carelessness not intent. I don't generally have a great mind for facts or trivia, as you can see (very glad you didn't ask what years Falling Waters was designed and built, for I couldn't tell you although I can describe the feeling the houses gave because of Wright's manipulation of space and my sadness about the effects of time, my dislike of the furnishings colors, which I think were chosen by the owners not Wright, and the feeling of peace on one of the balconies.) I don't mean this in a bad way, just that this is more my orientation.
The baseball issues won't I think be easily resolved. I have trouble distancing myself from some of these issues that I've come across reading about the game (particularly steroids which one of my dogs and a friend at work have experiences with). In keeping with my real life persona (the opposite of Brust's fictional Aliera e'Kieron), I simply find the money issues silly and annoying, whereas the men I know inside and out of the family, well many are angry about this. Like many other people I fell back in love with the game in '98. It's not that I'm out of love; but, that I realize it's not simple and like many other things there is a dark side. I guess truly it never was simple, I just forgot.
Was it Tabitha King who had a couple of basketball players as protagonists in one of her books? It's the only one I've read and nothing about football, I'm afraid or soccer, although I did try to bone up on hockey when my son was involved but got pretty lost watching it. I still prefer the pace of baseball, where something happens and then you get to talk about it for a while!
Anyway, I rambled again...hope you have a good night, keep that sabre ready (or is it foil or epee? Darby would know) I wouldn't want to engage you; but I do usually enjoy watching you and the others of the sharp and glittery minds.
[> [> [> [>Cooperstown -- Sophist, 16:32:39 08/15/02 Thu
And Sophist: Albany is close to Cooperstown too!
And, alas, all too close to Oneonta. Home of my mother in law.
[> [> [>can't believe you mentioned "today's game"! -- anom, 22:00:08 08/15/02 Thu
I remember that one! All the other baseball books I read as a kid followed a team through an entire season, but Today's Game focused, just the way it sounds, on one game. Of course, previous games are mentioned, but just in passing, for background. I was even going to name this book in the "books you read as a kid" thread months ago, if I'd had the time to post to it.
My history with baseball is a tragic one...grew up in the DC area in the '60s & '70s as a Senators fan >sniff<--at least I can identify w/Brooklyn Dodgers fans...lost most of my baseball card collection in a terrible melted-bubble-gum disaster, salvaged what I could & pitched (so to speak) the rest, & read 2-3 months later that you could get gum off stuff by freezing it >sob!<.
My favorite baseball poem is Ogden Nash's alphabetical one (can't remember the title, of course).
Favorite verse as a Senators fan (who wanted to go to Walter Johnson High School):
J is for Johnson
The Big Train in his prime
Was so fast he could throw
Three strikes at a time.
Favorite verse as Master of Pun Fu:
E is for Evers,
His jaw in advance,
Never afraid
To Tinker with Chance.
Although I'm also partial to
R is for Ruth
To tell you the truth,
There's no more to be said.
Just R is for Ruth.
Ain't it true!
[> [> [> [>Re: can't believe you mentioned "today's game"! -- DEN, 07:48:35 08/16/02 Fri
anom, I'm glad to find another fan of obscure baseball fiction. Thanks for the reply--and I feel for your lost card collection!
[> [> [> [>That's my second favorite baseball poem -- Sophist, 15:10:05 08/16/02 Fri
The first, of course, being Casey at the Bat.
I is for me,
not a hard-hitting man,
but an outstanding, all-time
Incurable fan.
[> [> [> [> [>oh yeah...& the last one: -- anom, 22:18:35 08/17/02 Sat
Z is for Zenith
The summit of fame.
These men are up there.
These men are the game.
'Course he kinda cheated on both of those, as well as on U, X, & Z (by not actually coming up w/players whose names start w/those letters). But he was Ogden Nash, we forgive him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: oh yeah...& the last one: -- aliera, 06:09:03 08/18/02 Sun
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/poems.shtml
The Nash peom is there and a couple on the joys of playing rught field. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [>I liked what he did with X -- Sophist, 09:45:08 08/19/02 Mon
"X is the first
of 2 Xs in Foxx..."
Pretty clever, since no player has ever had a last name beginning with X.
[> [>Re: -- d'Herblay, 15:06:09 08/15/02 Thu
My favorite baseball book ever was one where they took a meaningless midsummer game and broke it down pitch by pitch and play by play. I really felt like I was inside the heads of the players.
I don't know what this book is, but the description reminds me of my favorite basketball book of all time, 48 Minutes, in which Bob Ryan and Terry Pluto dissect a 1987 match-up between the Boston Celtics and the Cleveland Cavaliers in a similar fashion. Quite a lot of nostalgia for me, remembering when Brad Daugherty, Mark Price and Ron Harper were new to the league, and the Cavaliers were the team of the future -- a future which, unfortunately, never happened.
It's also the source of one of my favorite Trivial Pursuit questions: How long was the basketball game described in 48 Minutes? Answer: fifty-three minutes.
[>Re: All roads lead to Gould -- Darby, 13:45:35 08/15/02 Thu
An even further OT anecdote:
When the Museum of Natural History hosted a baseball display, Stephen Jay Gould wrote a piece on it for Natural History that was really all about what a museum can and should do for history and the ideas of history. My wife brought copies of that article to a meeting of the powers-that-be of the museum where she works and set off a wonderful discussion of what the museum's goals should be that seems to still be having repercussions.
- Darby, who really doesn't like baseball and cannot really explain why he likes (American) football.
[> [>I read that article. It was wonderful. -- Sophist, 13:53:34 08/15/02 Thu
[>It's a beautiful day here in Southern California...let's play ball! -- cjl, 20:25:53 08/15/02 Thu
As a drooling baseball fanatic (first game: Yankee Stadium, 1965), and a BtVS fan, combining the two was easy (and probably inevitable). So let's take the characters of BtVS and AtS, put them on a bus to Dodger Stadium in Chavez Ravine, choose up sides, and let the mayhem begin. Play ball!
********************
BUFFY BASEBALL. Nine innings to decide the fate of the universe.
Umpiring crew: The Powers that Be
Stadium Food: Supplied by Doublemeat Palace
Singing the National Anthem: Lorne (with Lindsay on guitar)
There is no Designated Hitter. (Because, I'm sorry, the DH rule is EVIL.)
In the stands: Spike--unable to choose a team.
The Starting Lineups
Visiting Team: The Bloods
Manager: The Master
Assistant Manager: Drusilla. (Yes, she's insane, but she has an amazing knack for predicting an opponent's strategy.)
Batting first and playing shortstop: Marci Ross ("Invisible Girl"). Superb lead-off batter. No observable strike zone. Leads league in walks, stolen bases, and runs scored. Gets excellent jump off of first, second, or third base.
Batting second and playing right field: Sweet ("OMWF"). Excellent set-up man for big hitters in the line-up. Fast and nimble on his feet, capable of lighting a fire under his teammates. Unnerves opposition with trash-singing.
Batting third and catching: The Judge ("Innocence"). Brutal on his own pitching staff ("There is no talent in this one."), but a rock behind the plate. Back from five-game suspension for vaporizing runners attempting to steal second base.
Batting fourth and playing center field: Glory. A hell-bitch at the plate and with the glove. League rules forbid using super speed to track down fly balls, but she's still a dominant force. (Only weakness: without warning, a light-hitting male doctor inexplicably takes her place on the field.)
Batting fifth and playing third base: Adam. (Team captain.) Not too much range at third, but he's got a gun for an arm.
Batting sixth and playing first base: Olaf ("Triangle"). Natural batting swing (from centuries of hammer-wielding). Babe Ruth of the demon world: loves food, loves booze, says he loves babies. (But the team publicist isn't going to make that mistake twice.)
Batting seventh and pitching: Darla. The Intimidator. Capable of throwing at opponents who crowd the batter's box. Enjoys throwing at opponents who crowd the batter's box.
Batting eighth and playing left field: Dracula ("Buffy vs. Dracula"). Unparalleled batsman, but a bit of a prima donna. (Known to disappear in a puff of smoke during crucial games.)
Batting ninth and playing second base: Vamp Willow ("Dopplegangland"). Defensive specialist, excellent with the leather. Best lateral movement in the league, goes both ways with ease.
On the bench: The Three; the Gorch Brothers; Luke. (Strangely, Luke and the Judge have never been in the same game.)
Team Owners: Wolfram and Hart
Home Team: The Slayers
Manager: Rupert Giles
Assistant Manager: Wesley Wyndham-Price
Batting first and playing center field: Oz. A little small for his position, but lupine speed and reflexes more than make up the difference. (Takes separate bus after certain night games.)
Batting second and playing left field: Connor. 16-year-old phenom (scouts say he literally came out of nowhere). Still up in the air whether he can handle major-league pressure.
Batting third and playing shortstop: Faith. Has worked through over-eagerness at the plate and multi-year suspension for on-field brawling to earn starting position. Grabs anything hit in her direction. Can switch with Buffy Summers in late innings if team needs a fresh arm.
Batting fourth and playing first base: Angel. Back as team leader in RBIs and sports cliches ("we have to take it one game at a time") after free agency scare at the end of 1998 season. Nearly recruited by the Bloods; signed long-term contract with Slayers on advice of super-agent Willow Rosenberg.
Batting fifth and pitching: Buffy Summers. Team captain. Burns hitters with slayer-powered 120 mph heater; baffles them with screwball.
Batting sixth and playing second base: Groosalugg. First recruit from Slayers' interdimensional scouting program. Dead fastball hitter; even after months of practice with batting coach Cordelia Chase, seemingly unable to learn how to hit the curve.
Batting seventh and playing left field: Riley Finn. Brought in as potential replacement at first base, but moved to left field after failing to win the position. Has performed well despite lingering fan hostility over groupie scandal in 2001.
Batting eighth and playing third base: Charles Gunn. Excellent fundamental ballplayer; runs hard on the base paths, charges ground balls, team leader in the locker room. Needs to maintain focus; fined twice for flirting with third base coach (Fred) during rallies.
Batting ninth and catching: Xander Harris. Heart of the ball club. Excellent pitcher/catcher rapport with Summers (although some observers insist that it's nothing more than friendship).
Team Owner: Anya Christina Emmanuella Jenkins
**********************************
Anybody want to do the play-by-play?
[> [>Re: It's a beautiful day here in Southern California...let's play ball! -- DEN, 07:54:39 08/16/02 Fri
Also a perfect matchup for the softball game at an ME picnic, sometime between the end of shooting and the beginning of the season. Put a cooler of beer and a bucket of blood at third base, and turn 'em loose!
[> [>ACK! NO! Dodger Stadium is a Hellmouth! -- Sophist, 15:14:43 08/16/02 Fri
No way would our heroes have that as their home field. They would play in Paradise, aka Pac Bell Park. Remember, it's the demons who flock to Southern California; our team is trying to slay the scum.
Uh, did I mention I'm a Giants fan?
[>Apropos of Nothing, great book -- Vickie, 22:05:19 08/15/02 Thu
At least, I hope so. I'm a short way into it. Peter A. David wrote it. It's been great fun so far.
If you hate puns, avoid!
The politics of representation and race in Sunnydale: a question and some comments -- Randy G., 10:28:48 08/15/02 Thu
I usually just lurk here, but the continuing controversies over representation on the two series, and the alleged moral responsiblity of show creators to never never let anything bad happen to a character that some viewers might identify with, leads me to ask a question.
This is a philosophy list, so here is a philosophical question: What are the substantive grounds for even entertaining the representation of social groups on television shows as an important issue? As a person of leftist proclivities who is very concerned about issues such the upward redistribution of wealth and the increasingly oligarchic nature of politics in this country, I have often wondered whether the passion that people put into decrying how their group gets treated on TV isn't misplaced. We are past the point where any group is banned from television, and beyond that, representation is more about marketing, chance, genre convention, and artistic choice than it is politics or discrimination (except possibly for actors).
A few thoughts of my own on the lack of diversity on "Buffy": Once pointed out, the whiteness of Sunnydale is rather jarring, especially for anyone who has actually seen California. Yet I think the point of making Sunnydale lily white, if there is a point,is to eliminate Sunnydale's human social structure as an issue in the show. That's what "whiteness" in America has always been about,not being noticed as part of an identifiable social group and thus avoiding whatever stereotyping or discrimination might apply. That's why lots of immigrants have striven to considered "white" over the years, and it has not been that long since groups like Irish Catholics, Italians, Greeks, etc, actually achieved that status. My wife's stepmother, for instance, is of Lebanese descent, but back in the rural Minnesota of the 1930s, they told people they were French. (Yes, just like the Coneheads.)
Since the 1960s, we have learned to celebrate diversity and ethnicity, but the country's self-image still tends to be as WASP-y as ever, especially in Hollywood productions purporting to show life in "Middle America." That's what Sunnydale is supposed to be, I think, despite the SoCal locale, and unfortunately, lily-whiten suburban life remains the rule in many truly middle American places, sometimes by choice, sometimes because of residential segregation by income, and sometimes because of a genuine lack of ethnic diversity.
While the continuing reliance on "whiteness" as the standard for normal American life on TV is regrettable, it does have a couple of advantages dramatically. One is that all the exotic supernatural stuff, all the bizarre challenges in Buffy's life, contrast better with a typical white-bread Hollywood suburb than a realistic California setting. Think of "Angel": there the idea is how easily the demons blend into life in LA, and there we have seen quite a few more non-white faces. The effect is quite different.
The other dramatic advantage of a nearly all-white (and all beautiful) setting is that the locus of conflict gets shifted elsewhere than "real" society. "Buffy" deals with lots of issues, but usually by supernatural allegory; when it gets too literal, as we saw with the "magic addiction" storyline this year, the show's magic tends to wear off. Probably Joss and his writers are better off dealing with issues of tolerance and love and community through the interactions of Slayer, normal humans and demons than they are trying to "realistically" depict Sunnydale society. The Scoobies' sense of alienation from the straight community (the part that will not acknowledge the supernatural) would have been much less of an issue if their school was riven by racial subcultures as well.
[>Re: The politics of representation and race -- Arethusa, 10:43:08 08/15/02 Thu
Do you mean, if the scoobies were just another minority amoung many minorities, their sense of isolation would be lessened?
[> [>Re: The politics of representation and race -- Randy G., 14:33:04 08/15/02 Thu
Yes, that is one part of what I meant. Even worse (dramatically speaking), a sociologically accurate depiction would have to place them among the dominant group -- affluent whites -- making their outsider status much less believable.
[>Some clarifications -- Sophist, 12:46:56 08/15/02 Thu
the alleged moral responsiblity of show creators to never never let anything bad happen to a character that some viewers might identify with
I've never seen anyone take this position.
What are the substantive grounds for even entertaining the representation of social groups on television shows as an important issue?
There are 2 separate issues entwined in your question:
1. Does (or should) the role call for a specific ethnic or racial type (e.g., Shylock or Othello)?
2. Does (or should) the ethnic background of the actor color (pun intended) our interpretation of the role?
Not sure which you mean.
Not sure I agree with some of your other statements, but I'll leave at this for now.
[> [>know I'm going to get flamed for this... -- sTalking Goat, 14:06:26 08/15/02 Thu
as a black male the entire issue never made any sense to me. BTVS is not about reality, at least not in a direct way. All the shows questioning of moral and philosphical issues are wrapped a smooth coating scif/fantasy genre elements. This is a good thing. It wouldn't fit in with the rest of the show if they suddenly decided to do 7th Heaven (*retch*) esque, evils of Rap episode. I for one would get supremely pissed, because thats not why I watch.
Still the shows manages not ignore 'real-life' issues. Its all there, drugs, alcohol, racism, sexism, sex, STD's, violence, peer-pressure, everything. They even managed to do some stuff before it became an issue (school shootings come to mind.) The show deals with these things in its own way. Manages to force no grand moral proclomations down your throat (unlike 7th Heathen..). I for one would notice if they suddenly had a quota of minorty cast members per episode (Smallville. I've watched an entire season and I still don't know that kid's name, and he's supposed to Clark's friend)
I think ethnic background does color the interpretation of a role. Take Gunn for example. There's a lot of interesting bits about his character that would be different if he were white (or Asian... or British for that matter).
If the the actor is white all-american male. You basically start with a blank slate. You can write anything and basically mold the chracter you want. If the actor isn't white or/and male, you get certain questions that the veiwer will want answered. And you either have to answer this quickly or let them run with their own stereotypes.
Its less of an issue with Sci-Fi, for example I never really noticed that the guy who plays Tuvok on Voyager is a black guy, until my mother metioned it. I always thought of him as 'the (token)vulcan'. It becomes more of an issue the closer a show sticks to modern day reality.
[> [> [>No flames here -- this was exactly what I was getting at -- Randy G., 14:29:42 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [>Some popular Sci-Fi, on the other hand has dealt with it thoughtfully, head on. -- A8, 17:35:43 08/15/02 Thu
My favorite, Deep Space 9, for example featured African-Americans in a number of prominent roles and dealt with issues of race in both a real historical context and within the fictional context of the futuristic Star Trek world. I can't recall an example of any non-caucasian actor being cast as the designated "redshirt" or bad guy. In, fact all the bad guys were played by white actors, if memory serves me correctly. Whether this was a conscious move on the show's creators' parts or just coincidence, I don't know. What it demonstrates to me is that diverse casting without controversy is possible and pretty much minimizes any demographic arguments to the contrary (By all accounts, DS9, though not a ratings bonanza was profitable enough to last 7 years, and could have gone beyond that if it hadn't become a policy of the Star Trek people to limit series to 7 seasons).
Avery Brooks as Captain Sisko was the lead character. Race was never an issue in the context of his command rank or position as the central character of the show. However, there were frequent references to the evils of racism in Earth's past with specific episodes having dealt with segregation in the 50's and discrimination in the 60's. On the other hand, racism was frequently dealt with in metaphorical terms with respect to the interaction of the alien races in what was the present time for the series.
I may be wrong, but I don't remember there being any major discussion pro or con (I would hope there would be no con)in the media over the fact that the lead character and a number of long-term regular cast members (Sisko, his son Jake, Sisko's father, his late wife Jennifer, his girlfriend Cassidy and the main "prophet" who appeared in the guise of Sarah Sisko) were African-American playing 24th century African-Americans (not just black actors under heavy alien makeup). Michael Dorn (in Klingon makeup) joined the cast in Season 4 and was a major plotcentric character for the final 3 seasons through the last episode of the series as well as having directed episodes (Avery Brooks directed eps too). In addition, there was a recurring African-American admiral, a Chinese-American (Rosalind Chao playing a Japanese-American character), and a Middle Eastern actor (Siddig Al Faddil, later Alexander Siddig) who played prominent roles in which the fact of their racial background was just taken as a matter of fact, as it should in all series that don't feature racial problems as core plot points.
It would be interesting to ask the producers of DS9, Rick Berman and Ira Stephen Behr, whether race ever came up as an issue in their diverse casting decisions or whether they were aware that they managed to avoid most of the traditional Hollywood casting cliches in the course of their stewardhip of the show.
[> [> [> [>On DS9 casting -- Chame, 18:29:48 08/15/02 Thu
I read somewhere that the only casting decision with the core cast that was influenced by race was that Jake Sisko had to be the same race as his father.
[> [> [> [> [>Re: On DS9 casting -- sTalking Goat, 12:52:15 08/16/02 Fri
Thats a casting decision? Thats kinda common sense isn't it? If Comm. Sisko is black. Jake has to be at least half-black, unless he was (like Worf who's parents were white and very American Gothic-esque Farmer types.) I don't see how thats a racial motivated casting decision.
[> [>Re: Some clarifications -- Randy G., 14:13:33 08/15/02 Thu
On the "moral responsiblity" point, see the Kitten Board FAQ on W/T and a series of essays by someone called Robert Black:
http://www.xtreme-gaming.com/theotherside/homophobia.html
http://www.xtreme-gaming.com/theotherside/tarasdeath.html
http://www.xtreme-gaming.com/theotherside/themessage.html
I have not been reading this board enough over the summer to know whether anyone has taken this position here, but it has been taken. I may have stated it in an exaggerated form in my previous post, but specifically the gist of the matter seems to be, it does not matter that Joss is obviously not a homophobe, or that nothing about the W/T relationship really conformed to the "Evil/Dead Lesbian" cliche. All that matters is that W/T was the only television reflection of themselves a group of viewers believed they had and that it was thus wrong to take that away.
I was wondering whether seeing yourself reflected in literal sociological terms is really so important, as long as derogatory caricatures are avoided. Nobody is really reflected in popular culture except in some idealized or stereotyped form. (Everybody in Buffy certainly is prettier, wittier, and tougher than real people). I am an overweight white male liberal intellectual from the Midwest. I have never seen myself reflected. In pop culture, Midwesterners are all corn-fed blonde naifs and hayseeds (Riley!). Everybody's grandma back in Iowa or Kansas has a farm. I lived in the Boston area for many years, and have never seen a television show set in the Boston area that even attempted to reflect who lived there, how they talked, or how they behaved. I recognize that these matters or representation may matter more to a group that has historically been oppressed or hated. Once popular culture stopped depicting gays as a sick and perverted, I am not sure it matters how many gay characters are on and how long they get to stay. Given the fact that a rainbow coalition of kids is such a cliche now in advertising and politics, I actually think it was rather brave and original of Joss to put together "Buffy" and "Angel" without even considering that. The introduction of Gunn, so patently as a token black character, was actually a little disappointing, and far from completely successful.
I am not sure what you need clarified regarding my representation as an issue question. Actors of color are the one most obviously harmed by lack of diversity in casting, and on both artistic and moral grounds, it probably doesn't work anymore to have white actors playing characters of color, like Anthony Hopkins as Othello or Burt Lancaster as an Apache. But most of the "representation" issues that people get riled about today fall outside those clear-cut categories, in terms of both the nature of the problem and who is harmed by it.
[> [> [>Re: Some clarifications -- Sophist, 16:26:23 08/15/02 Thu
Your re-statement of Bob Black's argument sounds a little closer to what I've read of his essays. I believe he has argued that Tara should not have been killed because W/T were unique on television. He has not, to my knowledge, argued that no character who is beloved by a group of fans should ever be killed (which is how I understood your first post). In any case, I don't think any regular poster here has even taken the less extreme version of Black's arguments, and I doubt anyone will defend them here.
Moving on to my original response. Your first post asked for a substantive justification for considerations of race in movies, TV, etc. I was trying to find out whether you meant in storyline decisions or in casting decisions.
By a storyline decision, I mean this: a writer creates a character of a specific ethnicity because that ethnicity is relevant to the story (e.g., Shylock). FWIW, I personally don't think any writer has any obligation to write such a part. My best guess is that no one else here would think so either. If so, perhaps that anwers your question. If not, my bones will be ground into paste as punishment for my temerity.
By a casting decision, I mean that the director considers race, say, in selecting one actor for the part as opposed to another who reads for the same role.
I gather from your comments about Anthony Hopkins and Burt Lancaster that you think that ethnicity is a legitimate consideration in casting a part. In that case, have you answered your own question?
[> [> [>Some reconsiderations... -- redcat, 16:38:48 08/15/02 Thu
The issue of representation is a complex one. I'm going to weigh in here, even though I've
probably been a bit too active in this set of conversations already, because it's a central issue
that I have to deal with in my professional research and writing. I think, Randy G, that you're
raising some interesting points, especially delineating the difference between representation
as a positive and as a negative space in the text of popular culture productions. It's an
extremely important issue in indigenous politics world-wide, and has a particular history where I
live.
Here, the issue is not just how many brown bodies wind up in films, television shows or
documentary videos. The main issue is, who has control over those images? This includes
questions of who decides how and when images of Native people will be used, and used for
what purpose, in what contexts and with what audio tracks alongside. Native Hawaiian
activists have been extremely out-spoken about these issues. My doctoral dissertation was a
study of a local, self-identified, multi-ethnic community of social-activist documentary
videographers, most of whom were women and few of whom were themselves Native
Hawaiians. In the 25-year period between 1972 and 1997, the twelve most active members of
this community (out of about 300 total videography-movement participants) produced over 200
social-activist documentary videos in support of the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement,
the Hawaiian cultural renaissance movement (language, hula, arts, healing, etc.) and the
environmental-protection movement. These were primarily shown on local public cable and
broadcast TV systems that these video activists had helped establish, as well as in school
auditoriums and libraries, at community halls, and at churches and local service-organization
meetings.
The videographers and the Native Hawaiian activists they interviewed for these documentaries
eventually worked out a system of collaborative, consensual protections of Native Hawaiians'
rights to control their own images. This included, for example, giving interviewees absolute
rights of control over whether specific interview segments could be used in the final product;
allowing them to decide what they would wear, where and how they were to be filmed, and
what they would say; and control over whether sacred Native sites or rituals could be
videotaped at all. Developing this system of cooperation between the videographers and the
Native activists took time and good faith on all sides. But in a world where Native peoples'
images are almost exclusively controlled by non-Natives, whether that be in Hollywood
productions or local commercial television advertising spots or the local nightly news, the
system that eventually developed for the local documentary community became a critical
strategy of resistance against the oppressive racism and sexism expressed in most
mainstream images.
And it's a critical strategy for BOTH the Native activists and the non-Native videographers. It
does make those video activists' jobs harder, and most film makers who come from the US,
Europe or Japan claim that it costs too much money to be sensitive to local concerns in this
way. The videographers with whom I worked (on my diss) thought the costs were far
outweighed by the larger social, political and cultural benefits. And in the process of coming to
a collective, community-wide consciousness about the rights of Native people to control their
own images, the local video activists also sometimes were able to open dialogues with non-
Hawai'i-based crews who came here to film commercial productions, and for whom they often
worked as locally-hired labor. Even though we still see that the majority of continental-USA
productions do not respect either the non-Hawaiian locals or the Native Hawaiians they film,
there is some movement in the broader social arena toward that goal, including talk in the state
legislature to force film companies that want to portray Native Hawaiians or Native Hawaiian
stories to consult with Native cultural experts first.
Some scream that this is prior censorship, that neither the state government nor the Native
Hawaiian community *should* have any control over what an independent producer or artist
wants to do. I understand that argument in an intellectual way, but also recognize the terrible
imbalance of power between those who film and those who are filmed. It's not an even
playing field, and notions of artistic or First Amendment freedoms run smack up against a two-
hundred-year history of colonialism, racism, theft and oppression by white folks against Native
ones.
It was white American officials of the US Territorial government who outlawed the public
speaking and publishing of the Hawaiian language at the turn of the century and the forced
imposition of English in all public places, leading to three generations of Natives who couldn't
speak or write their own language. As that language has had an astonishing revival in the
latter half of the 20thC, it's no wonder that Native political and cultural activists decry the
uneducated desecrations of it that they hear in Hollywood films or PBS documentaries paid for
by their (forced) US tax dollars.
In that sense, what seems on the surface to be a positive depiction may well feel to a Native
as a negative one. Who gets to decide if a portrayal is or isn't racist? Who gets to decide
when a character has gone beyond caricature? And how can we understand the complex
folding of race into ethnicity into class into sex into gender and into culture in any one
production, or that production's place in the larger social arena?
I have no answers, but I do know that people all over the world here in Hawai'i, in Brazil
among the Yanomamo, in Australia among the Aboriginals, in Aotearoa/New Zealand among
the Maoris, and in Canada, Alaska and Scandinavia among the Inuits -- are trying to find some
answers that work both for mainstream cultural producers and local indigenous communities.
Issues of representation go far beyond body counts or tropes or cliches. The contestation by
Native peoples of some of the fundamental ideologies of modern western culture, such as the
assumption that westerners have the automatic right to know everything they desire to and to
use anything they want to in any way they want to, will, IMHO, be among the most important
issues both those at the center and those at the periphery of global culture will have to deal
with in the coming decades.
[> [> [> [>Thanks for the terrific post -- Randy G., 08:56:30 08/16/02 Fri
To me, redcat raises much more serious real-world issues of representation than the simplistic stuff about how many characters of color (or gayness) there are and whether they are treated fairly. Thanks very much.
The Infamous Xander of "Becoming" -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:25:49 08/15/02 Thu
I have read several posts on this board in the past about the "evil of Xander". Many fans say that they haven't been able to forgive or like Xander's character since he lied to Buffy in "Becoming Part II". And, I admit, this was a horrible thing. If Buffy had known Willow was trying to resoul Angel, she may have tried harder to keep him away from Acathla. Because Xander lied to her, Angel was resouled after he had awakened Acathla, forcing Buffy to send him into a hell dimension in order to save the world. The event emotionally traumatized Buffy and tortured a souled Angel for centuries in Hell.
But, whenever I watch "Becoming", I keep something in mind: Buffy has done just as bad and been forgiven.
Let's look at motivation. In "Becoming Part I" Xander said that they shouldn't perform the ritual of restoration. He demanded that Angel be killed for his evil actions during the past few months, particularly the murder of Jenny Calender. A desire for revenge/justice against Angel and a hatred of him personally led Xander to lie. Now, a widely held opinion is that souled Angel is an entirely different entity from his unsouled state (which many call Angelus). I don't neccessarily agree with this, but, under this premise, allowing Angel to be killed for the acts of "Angelus" is murder, plain and simple. But, Xander hated Angel/Angelus so much he wouldn't let him live souled or unsouled.
Does this remind you of anyone else, say, a certain blonde Vampire Slayer?
In the episode "Innocence", Buffy discovered that Angel had lost his soul and was now a murdering sonofab!tch. But, near the end of the episode, when she had the perfect opportunity to kill Angel, she didn't. She couldn't bring herself to kill the thing with her lover's face. Allowing Angel to live, though, resulted in the deaths of at least five people (that we see, more were probably killed), Giles being tortured, and a near Apocalypse. Buffy loved Angel/Angelus so much that she wouldn't kill him souled or unsouled.
Sound familiar? Xander's hatred of Angelus led him to let Angel be sent to hell, which resulted in extreme torment for him and emotional trauma for Buffy. Likewise, Buffy's love of Angel wouldn't let her kill Angelus, resulting in the deaths of many people. However, Buffy seems to have, by and large, been forgiven by most fans, while Xander still has a number of people who say they don't think they can ever like the character again because of what they did.
Maybe this is because Xander hated Angel before he lost his soul, it is viewed differently. However, in "What's My Line Part II" Xander is appalled by Kendra's attitude of "let the vampire ide", so it is clear that Xander's lie in "Becoming Part II" was emotional confusion between Angel and Angelus, not an attempt to kill Angel.
(Again, I do think that Angel has at least partial responsibility for what he did while soulless, but I wrote this post from a different perspective because many see it contrary)
[>In Defense of Xander -- Tymen, 15:33:50 08/15/02 Thu
Xander's decision was a complex one. On the one hand, we have Xander's hatred of Angel/Angelus and his desire for Justice on his terms. On the other hand we have his desire for Buffy to come out of the situation alive and triumphant. She is resolved to do what is right and kill Angelus. Xander's options are to tell her what Willow is doing and perhaps weaken her resolve and therefore get her killed and thus have the world end or not to tell her and have her trying her damndest to kill Angel/Angelus so that the world doesn't end.
On the one hand he doesn't know if the soul restoration will be successful and he doesn't want to risk Buffy and the world in the hopes that it will. So, he chooses in his mind the lesser of two evils. The lie that will allow Buffy to do what she must to keep the world from ending.
That's a hell of a burden to place on the shoulders of a seventeen year old boy.
[> [>Agree. -- Caesar Augustus, 16:50:30 08/15/02 Thu
Think of the fight near the beginning of Becoming. Buffy's heart just wasn't in it because she was wobbling around, waiting for Angel's soul to kick in. I think it's fair enough for the world to not want that kind of crap to happen again, and want her to just go there with the express purpose of stopping the apocalypse which is nigh.
[> [> [>Re: Agree. -- Wizardman, 00:56:19 08/16/02 Fri
In Becoming pt. 2, I saw the lie as the thing which kept Buffy going. I've always believed that if Buffy knew, she wouldn't have tried quite so hard to fight him- she would have been stalling instead of fighting. And it would have killed her.
Did Xander do the right thing? Unequivocably yes. But I don't think that he did it for Buffy- he's always been of the belief that she can do anything. I believe that he lied in order to dispatch a hated rival. So while he did the right thing, he did so for the wrong reasons.
[> [>Compare to... -- xanthe, 09:35:18 08/16/02 Fri
...Xander's actions in a slightly similar situation in NKABOTFD. Buffy is battling a vampire she believes is the Anointed One in a funeral home and her date, Owen, receives a mighty blow to the head. Buffy swings into high gear, her anger allowing her to beat back the vamp who had been tossing her around only moments before. "You killed my date!" she shouts. But Willow notices that Owen is moving and is about to tell Buffy when Xander says, "Just give her a sec." Buffy proceeds to dispose of the vamp, using her emotions to kick up her energy. Did Xander do right in this case? Absolutely. Distracting Buffy at that moment and taking the edge off of her emotions might have caused the vamp to get the upperhand and would have deprived her of the energy and drive that she finally used to defeat him.
In Becoming 2, Buffy obviously cares far more about Angel than Owen, but Xander's reasoning is much the same. Should I distract her from her steely, single-minded purpose or should I difuse her anger and energy by introducing another factor that she has no control over? Either Willow's spell would succeed or it wouldn't. Xander had no idea about the role that Angel himself was playing in Acathla's awakening, so it wouldn't have made sense for him to take that into consideration. Buffy needed to be decisive and brutal to win out against Angeleus and having her stalling to see if her boyfriend would show up again wouldn't have gotten it done.
I'm sure that Xander's jealousy of Angel was somewhere in there, but it doesn't change the fact that he made the only right decision that he could have. I think that Xander was entirely justified. Whayda think?
[> [>Re: If one needs to dislike Xander -- wiscoboy, 14:44:17 08/16/02 Fri
dislike him for the callous weakness he showed towards Cordelia and her feelings vs. the willow thing. How shallow and petty that was, especially when he hurt the one he really wanted to be with. At least you can understand the whole "Kill Angel" thing.
BTW, is anyone else going thru withdrawl for new eps? I'm sorta happy FX decided to get back to 1 ep/night. I've overloaded on BTVS. Can't wait for NEW material to discuss.
[>On the cutting of slack -- Vickie, 16:39:04 08/15/02 Thu
I find it easier to understand a mistake or wrongdoing done out of love than one done out of hate.
Just call me crazy.
[> [>Love as a factor in forgiveness -- verdantheart, 13:57:26 08/16/02 Fri
Exactly. Take B/S and the sympathy factor. For those having a hard time understanding the sympathy some fans are lavishing on Spike, I think this (the fact that he unquestionably loves her) is a primary reason (oddly enough, not cheekbones). Meanwhile Buffy's treatment of Spike certainly had nothing to do with love, and her initiation of the relationship nearly inexplicable in her own terms (I have my own theories). And they wonder why she went down on the sympathy meter before the AR?
[>Sorry about the spelling and grammar mistakes -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:30:26 08/15/02 Thu
[>Treacherous Argument (general spoilers) -- Robert, 03:26:43 08/16/02 Fri
>>> "But, whenever I watch "Becoming", I keep something in mind: Buffy has done just as bad and been forgiven."
This is a treacherous argument. It boils down to justifying Xander's decisions and actions by claiming that Buffy is just as bad. One person's misdeeds can not be justified by the misdeeds of another. We are individually responsible for our own actions.
Regardless of the above, I never hated Xander or any of the other characters. Failing short of perfection is the human condition. We are all sinners living in a sinful world and in need of forgiveness. On the other hand, I don't cut him any slack either. I personally believe that Xander's action in "Becoming" constitutes a betrayal against Buffy, Willow and Angel. As some others have suggested, his actions may have made the difference between winning and losing. I don't think we can know one way or the other, but that does not change the nature of his actions. Whether or not his actions were justified by circumstance, he still committed betrayal, and if he were a shade bit more stalwart, he would have confessed to the wronged parties at a later date. After which, Buffy would likely have ripped him a new asshole.
This argument also applies to Giles in "The Gift". He willfully murdered Ben. Ben was an innocent, except for his betrayal of Dawn. His murder was not justified by his betrayal. The certainty of Glorificus' return, one the other hand, might constitute a justification. Either way, Giles still committed a murder, though possibly it was justifiable homicide.
The lesson I take from this is that we, as individuals, can only do our best and suffer the consequences afterwards. Sometimes we are called upon to do things unethical or immoral, but are otherwise dictated by circumstance, and failure to do so might be moral pusillanimity.
Was Buffy a coward for failing to kill Ben, thus putting the responsibility for doing so on Giles? What do you think? Personally, I don't think so, but I don't have a coherent argument to give at this time.
[> [>Re: Treacherous Argument (general spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:33:44 08/16/02 Fri
It's not that Buffy did something just as bad, it's that Buffy was FORGIVEN by most viewers for doing something just as bad. If they are willing to forgive Buffy, then the only right thing to do is forgive Xander.
[> [> [>Re: Treacherous Argument (general spoilers) -- Robert, 13:36:46 08/16/02 Fri
>>> "If they are willing to forgive Buffy, then the only right thing to do is forgive Xander."
Okay, now I understand what your saying. I certainly agree with your sentiments, though I still don't exactly agree with what you have written. I would argue that just because Buffy might be deserving of my forgiveness for her transgressions does not mean that Xander is also deserving forgiveness for his transgressions. The actions are different, and so are the people and relationships.
Forgiveness is a gift both to myself and the person upon whom I bestow it. If I give one person a gift, I am not morally bound to so gift the next person as a result (though I might be litigiously bound, but that is another story). To look at it from a different direction, if I am morally required to give a gift, it ceases to be a gift.
I'm Still Right -- Bachman, 15:25:36 08/15/02 Thu
I'm still right.
I posted here before and you people still don't seem to get the truth (well, one person did, but I think they were sarcastic).
Your "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is just an insepid, tasteless, and horribly unsubtle kiddy show, only with more sex to draw in an older age group. There is NOTHING poetic, mythic, or in anyway great literturic about it.
I asked a former-friend of mine to show me another episode of your show, making it the second one I've seen. I specifically asked to see one of his favorite episodes. And I have to say, it didn't change my mind one iota. Come on! The beer turns them into cavemen! Oh, don't tell me you find something in that to make this show some great work of art. If you do, you're too far gone to help.
You can watch it if you want. Hell, I've got a thirty year old brother who watches cartoons (but then, it took him six years to finish high school). But, you are all wasting your time by trying to find some deeper meaning in this pointless TV show. Get a life and grow up.
[>Re: I'm Still Right -- Arethusa, 15:37:07 08/15/02 Thu
I've got some theories:
1. Your "friends" hate you, and are getting revenge against you by making you sit through the least stellar BtVS episodes.
2. You're really Joss, and you just want to get us to praise your weaker shows.
3. You secretely admire BtVS and us greatly, and want to inspire us to new heights of BtVS praising.
4. You're Moloch.
[> [>I'm with you Arethusa -- ponygirl, 19:56:16 08/15/02 Thu
I'll bet my kittens on option #3, though 2 would be nice! Bachman's working too hard to push all the right buttons: kiddie show, Beer Bad, poor spelling, and another slam of cartoons -- it's long thread gold baby!
Back to working on my evil name, I'm torn between Angrybiteypony, or poutygirl... Neither's really suggesting twisted dark rage.
[> [> [>"Nightmare"? -- d'Horrible, 11:09:54 08/17/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>Mal de mare? (with apologies) -- Arethusa, 11:57:11 08/17/02 Sat
[>Didn't we discuss this at the strategy sessions? -- d'Horrible, 15:41:41 08/15/02 Thu
Coming in, fangs bared, dander up and looking for blood is not the way to deal with these people! You have to slip in silently, like a knife between the short ribs, before delivering the final twist. It's so much more satisfying that way! Subtlety, dear Bachman, subtlety. If you lope in like Rambo without a jockstrap, you'll just get beaten down. Stick with me and you can turn these puny mortals against each other until we're picking the sand fleas from their eye sockets.
Another thing, as that wise old miscreant Saguaro Stalker pointed out, your former friend may be having you on. I, as much as the next hell-thing, despise the way Buffy perpetuates the Evil/Dead Demon cliché, but even I can recognize that the two episodes you have seen may not live up to the show's quality. I can only suspect that your "friend" keeps lending you these episodes in the hope that you will no longer darken his doorstep with requests for more. These humans may be puny and weak, but they have done marvelous things in the deoderant department.
Also in the dictionary department: insipid, literary. Oh well, it appears your brother got the brains in your spore spawning.
[> [>"Deodorant," hypocrite! -- d'Horrible, 15:47:05 08/15/02 Thu
I pick my teeth with the bones of my careless spelling!
[> [>Re: posting name -- Saguaro Stalker, 15:57:10 08/15/02 Thu
This is why we call you "A d'Horrible." The H silent, right?
Thanks anyway, for straightening out this amateur. The guy probably should start out by berating something he actually watches. Say Teletubbies?
Keep snarling.
[> [>You know what my good friend Screwtape said-- -- Honorificus (the Ever-So-Humble One), 16:35:00 08/15/02 Thu
"I always thought the Training College had gone to pieces since they put old Slubgob at the head of it, and now I am certain."
Not that I blame only Slubgob. Young demons these days have no patience. They expect everything to fall into their hands like a rotten plum. You try your best to teach them the evil way, but do you get thanked? No, you get minor imps who have no gift for subtlety thinking they can own the world in a few short paragraphs. This is why I never answer these trolls directly: they're so unstable they'll turn on you in an instant. I much prefer my enemies to cook up complex schemes; makes 'em that much more fun to destroy in the end.
But perhaps this one's not totally useless. Think he's got a brain I could eat?
[> [> [>Depends . . . -- d'Horrible, 16:40:13 08/15/02 Thu
Are you on a low-calorie diet?
[> [> [> [>Sweetie, do I *look* like I need a low-calorie diet? -- Honorificus (the Sexy and Svelte One), 17:25:59 08/15/02 Thu
Perhaps he'll work as an hors d'oeuvre. I'm having a Harvard grad for dinner tonight.
[> [> [> [> [>You ARE "She-Who-Makes-The-Ground-Tremble" -- d'Horrible, 21:27:38 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>How dare you, you pimple on a Chaos Demon's antler! -- Honorificus (She-Who-Makes-The-Heavens-Shake), 22:58:28 08/15/02 Thu
I make the ground tremble through the force of my personality, not my weight, you insignificant pustule on a minor imp's ear!
[>Well, if at first you don't succeed-- then the hell with it! ;-)! -- The Third Evil, 15:43:31 08/15/02 Thu
[> [>Uhh, excuse me... it's VERY busy here right now... -- Satan, 16:03:26 08/15/02 Thu
...and furthermore I'm especially cranky since the air conditioner in my office stopped working, so kindly don't be sending anyone this way anytime soon. I'll let you know when things darken up again.
Sincerely,
S.
[>Methinks I smell a fallacy... -- The First Evil, 15:46:18 08/15/02 Thu
He's seen 2 shows out of... how many? 122 episodes for BtVS and 66 for AtS? And he can confidently declare he "knows" the show has no deeper meaning?
I know my statistics isn't up to snuff, but a sample size of 2 taken from a population of n = 122 or worse, n =188 creates an overgeneralization (and a biased one, as Arethusa pointed out) that boggles the mind with its inadequacy.
Better brains everywhere are ignoring this person until he can come up with statistically significant evidence. And then we'll blast him on the inherent subjectivity of Art anyway.
[>Say it with me and Giggle! "Some People Are Dumb!" -- Devil Beast Bagan (Majin Gojira's sadiscitcly evil Avatar), 16:05:11 08/15/02 Thu
[>Bachman, question: Do you have a life? -- JCC, 16:16:46 08/15/02 Thu
We like the show so we talk about it. You don't like it, yet you come here to tell us that. News: We don't care.
Oh no, Bachman doesn't like Buffy, we should stop watching.
My little theory is that you may be one of the Buffy loving posters trying to cause trouble.d'Horrible, is it you? ;o)
I mean what kind of friend would pick these episodes that Bachman has viewed. Its fairly un-likely. Look buddy, go watch whatever show gives you a mindless bit of fun for 30 minutes while intelligent people get on with their lives.
grrrr arrghh
[>Bachman?! Thought I put you in the ground following "The Regulators." -- Stephen King, with deepest apologies, 16:33:35 08/15/02 Thu
[> [>Sometimes They Come Back, Steve -- Arethusa, 16:36:25 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [>And sometimes they come back Wrong .... -- LadyStarlight, 17:10:12 08/15/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>LMAO!!! How sadly true in this case-someone let him near a keyboard again! -- AurraSing, 17:26:06 08/15/02 Thu
It's sad how some men with the mental age of a three year old need to get their shits-and-giggles surfing around and making posts like this.Wish he's just go back to petting his Meeko and leave the board alone.(remind me about this when you write...it's pretty funny!)
[>Re: I'm Still Right -- DoppelRob a.k.a. Robbelganger, 17:46:10 08/15/02 Thu
Learn some grammar, moron.
"...well, one person did, but I think they were sarcastic..."
The subject of your sentence--this "one person" of whom you speak--is a singular noun. Therefore, when you refer to this person later in the sentence, he or she should continue to be in the singular form. However, you carelessly and most unjudiciously switched to the plural pronoun form--"they."
Maybe you should spend less time bothering us here with your "insepid" statements, and more time brushing up on your grammar, perhaps by studying some "great literturic" works.
Might I suggest something on your reading level, such as those fascinating Dick and Jane primers?
Rob
P.S. Evil enough for ya, d'Horrib?
[> [>You're so hot when you get all teacher-like! -- AurraSing, 18:24:01 08/15/02 Thu
Rowr!!
It's always inspiring to be able to help the less grammatically correct mend their ways.And get some snark in at the same time.
LOL.
[> [> [>ROFLMAO! -- SexyRob, 19:37:23 08/15/02 Thu
[>Sure You Are -- Finn Mac Manson, 17:58:39 08/15/02 Thu
And Bill Clinton's a virgin.
Let me ask you something: if it's a former friend you're going to for these Buffy episodes, why would they actually give you a good episode to see? Former friends tend to be bitter.
Now, all my loyal knights, kill him.
(The Knights of the Fiana/Manson Family run Bachman through with sharp, pointy swords)
[>Deconstructing Bachman -- Underworld, 20:15:04 08/15/02 Thu
I must say I'm intrigued. Is Bachman a real troll? Or could he fit one of the possible theories laid out by Arethusa? Or (dramatic pause).... No, wait! First, consider:
Your "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is just an insepid, tasteless, and horribly unsubtle kiddy show, only with more sex to draw in an older age group. There is NOTHING poetic, mythic, or in anyway great literturic about it.
Maybe it's my paranoia talking, but don't those misspellings seem suspiciously planted? He can spell "horribly," and "unsubtle" just fine, and in the next paragraph he nails "specifically" and "iota."
I asked a former-friend of mine to show me another episode of your show, making it the second one I've seen. I specifically asked to see one of his favorite episodes. And I have to say, it didn't change my mind one iota. Come on! The beer turns them into cavemen! Oh, don't tell me you find something in that to make this show some great work of art. If you do, you're too far gone to help.
The structure of this paragraph is very smooth, with a pleasing balance of short and long sentences. He sneaks in the identity of the episode very cleverly. (A little too cleverly...Hmmm!) And what's with the "former-friend"? Why would anyone ask a former friend for an episode? Why would a former friend give one to you? Or is he a former friend now because you've had a falling out over Buffy?
I could go on, but I think you all can see where I'm going. Bachman is....ONE OF US! Yes, I'm convinced of it! He fits the profile of at least a dozen regular posters here. Where's Dedalus been lately? He's been quiet...a little too quiet! And are we sure Sol is really...a student??? Haven't Mal's cleverly constructed satires been a little too...on the nose??? And d'Horrible's earlier thread announcing his descent into demonhood: Wasn't that just...convenient???!
Or it could be Joss.
[> [>And people thought you were Boke . . . -- d'Horrible, 20:25:50 08/15/02 Thu
Of course, Boke knew more HTML. Or is someone deliberately hiding his light under a bushel?
Our First Evil is omniscient in such matters. Her all-seeing eye would see through any such disguises -- unless, of course, they involved public libraries, cybercafés or AOL.
Anyway, I know how this goes. Someone rises to his feet, says, "I know who did it!" Then there's a flash of lightning and the lights go out. When they come on again, Mr. Know-It-All has a dagger through his chest. Ah! Heart-warming family comedies! I like to warm hearts over a can of Sterno.
[> [> [>Not enough HTML, you're right. Or blonde highlights. -- Underworld, 21:13:26 08/15/02 Thu
[> [>Re: Deconstructing Bachman -- Arethusa, 20:41:20 08/15/02 Thu
Yes, he was definitely slipped in the description of "Beer Bad" much too casually. And he all but dared us to find meaning in the episode. The punctuation, use of parenthesis, vocabulary, and sentence and paragraph structure are those of someone who is educated and writes often, possibly on the internet because of the distinctive spacing of the paragraphs, but is not a stickler for correctness, and therefore is not an editor or academic. The mispellings could be deliberate, as underworld said, to throw us off the scent.
Another theory: someone who is picking our brains, possibly for his/her own internet site.
[> [> [>Excellent, Arethusa. You should be a profiler. -- mm, 07:22:21 08/16/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>Thanks. -- Arethusa, 07:33:17 08/16/02 Fri
Although I feel a bit silly, now, if Finn is indeed Bachman. I've never understood the attraction of poking an anthill with a sharp stick to see the ants scurry around, to put his(?) actions on a metaphoric level. I'd rather see ants in situ.
And you discovered my secret wish. I would have loved to be a profiler.