December 2002 posts
There's
a rumor on BC&S that Glenn Quinn (Doyle) died on Monday. Confirmed?
-- cjl, 13:26:55 12/05/02 Thu
[> According to http://glenn-quinn.com/
he passed away Dec. 2 -- he will be missed, 13:35:52 12/05/02
Thu
[> Oh my God! I had no idea.
Was he sick? -- Rob, 14:12:05 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> Details, please!
Anybody?? -- A very saddened Masq, 14:16:37 12/05/02 Thu
Doyle! *sob*! It's like the end of "Hero" all over again,
only 100x worse.
[> [> [> Details at
http://www.glenn-quinn.com/ -- frisby, 15:48:06 12/05/02
Thu
It's true. I found it at
http://www.glenn-quinn.com/
off of the
http://whedonesque.com/
site.
Here are the words:
"This is an unofficial fan site dedicated to the talented
Irish actor Glenn Quinn. This site was built by Glenn's fans to
help publicise his career, provide a place for fans to learn more
about Glenn, and meet and get to know one another.
It is with great sadness that we report that Glenn Quinn passed
away Tuesday, December 3, 2002. Services for Glenn will be held
privately with his family and close friends.
Glenn's body of work earned him the devotion of fans around the
world, and he will most certainly be sorely missed. The staff
at Glenn-Quinn.com would like to extend deepest sympathies to
his friends and family, and the assurance that through his work,
Glenn touched all of us.
He will never be forgotten."
[> [> [> Whoops! Sorry!
Nothing new there. A memorial at URL below -- frisby http://www.geocities.com/glenns_girl_01/memorial.html,
15:57:28 12/05/02 Thu
http://www.geocities.com/glenns_girl_01/memorial.html
advertises itself as a memorial to his memory.
[> Despite extensive searching...
-- Wisewoman, 14:20:28 12/05/02 Thu
I can't find any more on this than the announcement at www.glenn-quinn.com
He was in his early 30s so if this is true he's very young to
die. Bandwidth has been exceeded at most of his fan sites, so
it may be some time before we get any details.
I thought Doyle was a great character. I couldn't believe they
killed him off, and I always kinda hoped we'd see him again...guess
not.
:o(
[> [> Me neither. Other
sites I found just redirect to glenn-quinn.com, which gives very
little info. -- Rob, 14:24:57 12/05/02 Thu
[> This is horrible. Peace
be with him. -- Apophis, 15:16:10 12/05/02 Thu
[> May he rest in peace.
-- Sophie and Sophomorica, both very saddened, 15:43:18 12/05/02
Thu
[> I really don't know what
to say. -- Deb, 15:56:12 12/05/02 Thu
[> Poster on a Glenn Quinn
message board -- Wisewoman, 16:32:12 12/05/02 Thu
...who says he lives down the street from Quinn's cousin (or nephew?)
confirms that Quinn died in his sleep of a heart attack at the
age of 32.
I take no responsibility for how reliable this may be, but it's
all I've been able to find...
:o(
[> [> I really hope we
get official confirmation soon. -- Rob, 16:50:13 12/05/02
Thu
...Do we even yet know if this real or just one of those Internet
rumors that go around about celebrity deaths?
Rob
[> [> [> I hope we
DON'T get official confirmation soon . . . -- d'Herblay, 17:26:52
12/05/02 Thu
. . . 'cause then he'd be, you know, alive.
A Google News search on "Glenn
Quinn" came up empty. I haven't seen anything on the
AP
Wire. It's impossible to prove a negative, of course -- not
that Quinn's being, you know, alive is really a negative -- but
my skepticism is in overdrive. But then, as my results on the
Museum
of Hoaxes Photo Test showed, I tend to be so quickly skeptical
that I often discount true stories.
[> [> [> [> Guess
I didn't phrase that right. I sorta meant official confirmation
either way... -- Rob, 19:06:26 12/05/02 Thu
...although since Tim Minear posted about it (see Rufus' response
under this), it seems like it's true. Too bad. I really liked
him.
Rob
[> Glenn Quinn died Tuesday
December 3, 2002 -- Rufus, 17:31:45 12/05/02 Thu
I got an e-mail from the girl who runs slayage.com..
Hi friends
It's with a heavy heart that I write to you today to tell you
that Glenn Quinn died on December 3nd.
I first heard about it this morning from Tara O'Shea
Webmaster of glenn-quinn.com on alt.tv.angel and confirmed by
Tim
Minear
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: timminear@aol.com (Tim Minear)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.angel
It's true. Just got word myself. Very sad.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My sympathies go out to his family and friends. I will always
fondly remember him as Doyle, of course, and as Mark in Roseanne.
A very talented actor. That poignant moment at the end of 'Hero'
had so much meaning at the time and resonates with this news now...
Doyle: "If you need help. Then look no further. Angel
Investigations is the best! Our rats are low."
Cordy: "Rates!"
Doyle points to the papers taped on the windows behind her: "It
says 'rats'. - Our rates are low, but our standards are high.
When the chips are down, and you're at the end of your rope you
need someone that you can count on. And that's what you'll find
here - someone that will go all the way, no matter what. So don't
lose hope. Come on over to our offices and you'll see that there's
still heroes in this world. (Clears his throat) Is that it? Am
I done?"
Take Care
--
Bec
http://www.slayage.com/
Is this a
coincidence or a hidden truth? -- Frank,
14:14:42 12/05/02 Thu
I may be wrong or not, but I would like to know either way. Has
anyone noticed that in the Buffy episode "Fool For Love"
the character known as Cecily, Spike's pre-vampire crush, is also
strikingly famliar to Halfrek, Anya's vengeance demon friend.
Is this why, in "Older and Far Away" they recognized
eachother? If so, I have another comment to add. Wouldn't Spike
be a little angry with her, I mean because in "Fool For Love"
when he hears Buffy make the remark, 'You're beneath me.' he goes
a little ballistic. I would have thought him to have gotten even
with Cecily or something after he was sired. Unless, of course,
he felt that she no longer mattered to him after being sired.
In which case, that was probably why he didn't make a fuss of
being recognized by her in "Older and Far Away." Or
maybe he was embarrassed of what he was and he didn't want to
make light of it. Maybe the same might be for Halfrek. Both of
their beginnings were unspectacular and in my opinion a little
embarrassing. I just wished that Joss Whedon would have written
a little more into Halfrek's becoming a 'justice demon'. Uunless
of course I'm completely wrong, which I strongly disagree. Please,
if anyone has a reply, I wish very much to hear it.
[> Re: Is this a coincidence
or a hidden truth? **Spoilers for Selfless** -- Wisewoman,
14:38:55 12/05/02 Thu
We did discuss the fact that Cecily and Halfrek were played by
the same actress back when Halfrek first appeared, last season
I think?
It was never explained how Halfrek and Spike knew each other,
to my knowledge, and now that Halfrek has been killed by D'Hoffryn
we may never know anything more about her.
You are indeed correct, though, that they are played by the same
actress, even if they're not supposed to be the same person.
[> Re: Is this a coincidence
or a hidden truth? (Spoiler for Lessons) -- Sarand, 14:51:00
12/05/02 Thu
Halfrek's conversation with Anya in "Lessons" indicates
that she was a justice demon in the Crimean War, which was before
William some thirty years before the events in "Fool for
Love". I read somewhere, probably on this board, that it
was a coincidence that the same actress was hired to play Halfrek
as had played Cecily and that the writer(s) thought it was funny.
I think the little recognition double take was put in as a nod
to the fans who were surely going to recognize the actress, and
not because Hallie was Cecily.
[> [> Re: Is this a coincidence
or a hidden truth? (Spoiler for Lessons) -- leslie,
15:50:16 12/05/02 Thu
I don't know, if Hallie was on the job and masquerading as Cecily,
and already a vengence demon, a) it gives an interesting twist
to the "beneath me" brush-off, since we have seen that
most demons, and especially vengence demons, *do* consider themselves
to be superior to humans (as with Anya's comment in Beneath You
about the others being "so...human" in tones of disgust);
and b) it gives a nice irony to the fact that William immediately
went off and got himself vamped, thereby "trading up on the
food chain." (Vengence demons seem to be the one class of
demon that is comparable to vampires in that they are both demons
who were formerly human.)
[> [> [> another possibility?
-- anom, 20:57:57 12/05/02 Thu
"I don't know, if Hallie was on the job and masquerading
as Cecily, and already a vengence demon...."
Maybe William was the job Hallie was on! Maybe someone
had made a vengeance wish on him: that he be rejected & humiliated,
& have to carry that pain w/him eternally. Maybe there was a woman
William considered beneath him, who loved him, was rejected
(or not even noticed) by him, & wished he would know what it felt
like. Halfrek could have become the very embodiment of his fantasized
ideal woman--or, if he was already in love w/Cecily, kept her
out of the way long enough to play her in that little scene we
saw--& sent him running straight into Drusilla to arrest his development
right at that point. All of his attempts to leave behind what
he had been in his human days...could he have just been trying
to escape the humiliation that had been wished on him?
[> [> [> [> That's
kinda hard to believe -- vh, 07:37:46 12/06/02 Fri
That William could possibly reject and humiliate any woman. He
was so very insecure.
However, I do believe Hallie probably was a vengeance demon, and
William was just there.
[> Doug Petrie gives the
answer in the FFL commentary [spoilers to Selfless] -- slain,
18:06:53 12/05/02 Thu
He says that he doesn't know what Cecily became Halfrek,
and invites us to make up our own mind. I kind of think it's a
shame that Hallie was killed, as I think I'd have quite like to
see her interact with Spike. After all, Cecily was such an important
part of his human life. But perhaps we might see her return in
the form of the First Evil? I wouldn't be surprised.
[> [> Et... -- slain,
18:08:13 12/05/02 Thu
...But he does make it clear that they're the same person,
not separate characters; Halfrek is Cecily.
[> [> [> Re: Et...
-- Sophie, 18:40:17 12/05/02 Thu
That is my working theory.
The Misrepresentation
of Buffyverse Vampires & Demons in Academia -- Rob, 14:19:14
12/05/02 Thu
I'm probably opening up a whole big controversial can of worms
here--actually, I know I am, since we've had discussions about
this before--but, while reading "Fighting the Forces,"
I became very disturbed by a particular essay, "The Undemonization
of Supporting Characters," in which the author casually referenced
a source that claims that "Buffy" is racist. She went
on to demonstrate how the show was not racist; her examples included
things such as the Initiative plotline and Spike, and the overall
greying of the good/bad delineations in the Buffyverse. And yet
the author still claimed that vampires and demons are symbolic
of "race in American society; the characters' successful
and unsuccessful attempts to deal with the Other often illuminate
the ways in which society may come to terms with differences in
race, culture, and lifestyle." Throughout the essay, she
continually repeated the idea that the vampires and demons on
"Buffy" are symbolic of minority races.
While I will acknowledge that, at times, the treatment of vampires
and demons have been used to demonstrate racism--examples include,
from "Buffy," the Initiative arc, and from "Angel,"
the Scourge from "Hero" and Gio from "That Old
Gang of Mine"--I think that to make such a sweeping gesture
as to say that all vamps and demons on "Buffy" at all
times represent minorities is not only an overgeneralization,
but robs other, deeper layers of meaning from this incredibly
complex show. Metaphors do not remain constant on "Buffy."
Just look at all the different things magic has been used to represent!
An interpretation of vampires as the minority, of course, paints
Buffy as an evil figure, wiping out those other races trying to
converge on white society. While this is a convenient argument,
I think it ignores a great deal, particularly regarding vampires.
For starters, "Buffy" is a show about growing up, and
all the trials and tribulations the characters go through in the
process of growing up. And what are Vampires? Things that will,
in the "natural" course of events, live forever. They
can be seen as representational of the fears Buffy and the SG
have upon growing up--that they will become cold, soulless things
also, as many adults in their world seem to be. Principal Snyder
is not much different than a vampire. What I've always felt to
be the important part of the vampire symbol is that vampires were
once just like us, but were changed into demonic things. The "minority"
symbol doesn't do justice to this very important part of the "Buffy"
mythology, the fear that one day we will give into our darkness
as well and also become vampires. Yes, Vampires are societal Others,
but they are Others who used to be members in the society. Minorities,
on the other hand are considered societal Others from the get-go;
they are not members of society who were transformed into something
else, as vampires are, but have always been perceived as different,
be it because of the color of their skin, the sound of their accent,
or their religion.
This also ignores the fact that Buffy and the SG were also shown
as societal Others, and that the two groups (Buffy and her friends/demons,
vamps) were meant to parallel each other from the beginning. It
was again one of the first clues on the show that a souled creature
is not necessarily good, an unsouled is not necessarily evil.
Buffy and her friends, from the start, were shown in a similar
position, in the high school microcosm, as the beings that they
fight.
I think that it is easy to find racism in just about any piece
of art. If you look for it, you can find it. If you try to find
a very surfacey symbol--that because vamps and demons run in gangs
and harm people in the society, that they are villainized versions
of minorites, done to promote, as propaganda, the idea that minorities
are monsters--you can find it. But that ignores so much. I'm very
glad that Sunnydale is being portrayed as more multi-cultural
this season, because it further hammers home the point that vampires
and demons do not = Blacks, Hispanics, etc. A white person, a
black person, a Hispanic person, a Jewish person, an Asian person...they
all could be turned into vampires. Vampires are not the Other
of White Society, but are the Others of the Entire World, feeding
on the outskirts of every society. Vampires and Demons are the
darkness within Ourselves.
Rob
[> After all, Buffy still
kills vampires and feels perfectly justified in doing so --
Masq, 15:15:42 12/05/02 Thu
And if vampirs and demons are just allegories for other races,
then the implications are staggering. Because despite notable
exceptions, most vamps and demons on the show are still straight-forwardly
depicted as evil and killers.
[> [> Agree. The implication
is staggering. -- Deb, 15:48:49 12/05/02 Thu
The racial card could have been argued better by looking at casting,
which season seven seems to demonstrate that there was an influx
of minorities over the summer. I'm sure there is a researcher
out there who will use this also to make some sort of staggering
implication of "white flight" like white people can
afford to run from the vampires, but the minorities, and single
mother headed households, are forced to stay and put up with the
vampires because of inability to flee due to economic repression,
or perhaps there is a growing population of minority vampires
and demons in general which is more politically correct.
[> [> Re: After all,
Buffy still kills vampires and feels perfectly justified in doing
so -- slain, 18:02:30 12/05/02 Thu
It does strike me as a feature of the American academic style
that it's acceptable to make sweeping generalisations without
backing them up, in order to keep points short and concise (making
my own sweeping generalisation there, of course!) and the overall
length of the paper less. But as Deb says, it's a general feature
of modern criticism that very specific points of view are used,
along with apparently very tennuous interpretations - something
I know has stood me in good stead in the past!
I do think demons can represent races - but it depends on the
way that they're portrayed. Take the demons in 'Hells Bells',
but the contrast them with the demon-supremascists in an episode
of AtS. Demons can be racists as well as racial minorities, but
Buffy herself, unlike Faith or Riley, never discriminates against
harmless or persecuted demons (such as Clem, for example).
[> [> [> Okay, so
is what you are saying is that..... -- Rufus, 00:11:49
12/06/02 Fri
Though the basic metaphor of vampires is akin to being our shadow
selves and remains the same, but part of that metaphor may shift
to suit a particular episode?
[> [> I don't follow
the racial implications... -- ZachsMind, 08:35:39 12/06/02
Fri
I think that may simply be reading too much into it. The vampires
and demons in "Buffy" represent general evil in society.
I don't see how Whedon has ever implied they mean any particular
known race, color or creed. Most vampires are obviously caucasian.
Most recently there was a vampire that happened to be black, but
that's simply a casting choice, and not an implication that all
vampires are innately minorities.
In the Star Trek franchise, one could compare the Klingons to
present day russians and Romulans as present day communist chinese,
but again that may simply be reading too much into it. There's
far more dissimilarities than comparisons.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. =)
[> Re: The Misrepresentation
of Buffyverse Vampires & Demons in Academia -- Liv (just lurking
most of the time...) ;), 15:19:41 12/05/02 Thu
Extremely well-said!
I'm actually working on a term paper for my Sociology of Fear
& Risk course and you re-enforce my argument pretty damn well.
Would you mind if I referred to your posting?
...With full credit of course! ;)
[> [> Of course! I would
be honored!! :o) -- Rob, 15:28:32 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Yay!
Thanks, Rob! -- Liv, 15:32:24 12/05/02 Thu
[> Jumping before looking
-- Deb, 15:31:50 12/05/02 Thu
Critical analysis of a text in the postmodern academic world gives
creedence to all interpretations. You could write a paper on any
one of the social issues you bring up. I've read a few papers
that I certainly don't agree with, but that is my right: not to
agree.
The only frustration I feel about this board is the fact that
some people, including myself, have a tendancy to academically
view Buffy as text and approach it from a certain framing that
is not communicated to the other posters. Others post from the
heart and from opinions, which are valid also. My thread below
is a mixture, and I should have made that clear. My criticism
of *the topic that has been beaten to mush by now* is based upon
the mass communication theory of social responsibility and the
theory of uses and gratification, which does not have anything
to do with with the art history view of one interpretation, that
being that of the creator. You can't really argue a point if you're
not approaching the argument from different world views. Vampires
in the Buffyverse represent whatever a viewer sees them as representing
based upon the viewer's personal schema. (This is according to
rhetorical criticism) So in rhetorical criticism in academia,
JW's explanation of the Buffyverse is not considered to be the
only valid explanatio, and the viewer even has the right to say
it is invalid in their world. It's about ripping a text apart
using a particular method, and then reconstructing the text using
feminism, metaphorical, ideological, Marxism, Cluster Theory,
Visual Rhetoric, psychoanalytical, etc,. etc. Sounds like this
paper uses a form of feminism with a smacking of Marxism possibly.
I don't know. I would need to read it.
If anyone is interested in how rhetorical criticism is done, I
highly recommend Sonya Foss' "Rhetorical Criticism"
which is very open to non-academic understanding. Straight to
the point with examples to boot. (My favorite is "Batman
as Schizophrenic Hero" and the book has a buzzy neon green
cover that is quite stimulating also.) Another recommendation
Jill Dubisch's "In a Different Place" which is about
pilgrimage, gender and politics using an Iconic shrine to the
(Orthodox) Madonna on the Greek Island of Tinos as a rhetorical
text. Her approach is ethnographic experimentation. It is very
textured reading and quite startling in its conclusions, but she
argues beautifully.
I think I've just come to the conclusion that we need to be grateful
that we have Buffy to use to discuss the difficult issues of life
and that we all, somewhere, can find common ground, and learn
from each other.
[> [> I guess "misrepresentation"
was a subjective term. -- Rob, 15:46:16 12/05/02 Thu
I still don't agree with the representation that this essay suggests,
because I think it's a limiting one, that blinds readers to the
other issues in the text...but maybe "misrepresentation"
wasn't a fair word to use.
Rob
[> [> [> That's the
point. You have the right to disagree and be correct. -- Deb,
15:51:33 12/05/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Cool!
-- Rob, 15:54:33 12/05/02 Thu
[> Rob, I've been ranting
against this pov since Day 1!!! -- Rahael, 16:19:35 12/05/02
Thu
Every single real life friend who loves this show (and who I haven't
through the board) is 'non-white'. However one defines whiteness
or blackness.
The whole contribution I made to your site about "Otherness
as specialness" was triggered by arguing against this view.
Funnily enough, I don't look at the show and think "Spike!
Drusilla! Finally, I'm being represented in BtVS."
The whole Spike as Victorian Imperial symbol thing that I've posted
on has also been in response to this view - my attempt to explain
why I, with my background find him the least likely candidate
for 'blackness'. And my posts on why I find BtVS the most compelling
show for me to think about prejudice and intolerance I've encountered.
I'm kind of like a broken record about it.
[> [> Re: Rob, I've been
ranting against this pov since Day 1!!! -- Rob, 16:48:48
12/05/02 Thu
"Funnily enough, I don't look at the show and think 'Spike!
Drusilla! Finally, I'm being represented in BtVS.'"
LOL!
While typing up my post, I actually did mean to give you credit
for the idea of the SG as the Other in the high school, but in
my frenzy to click "Send" and "Approve," I
forgot. I apologize about that. While I was reading this article,
your ideas about Otherness as Specialness were screaming in my
head. I wanted to personally walk up to the author's front door
and yell, "You're missing the point!" A lot of the posts
you had here about race I skipped past or didn't read as thoroughly
as I should have, because most of them grew in to (or were part
of) such huge threads that it was kind of overwhelming, since
I didn't feel like I was knowledgable enough to comment on the
issue. But I totally agree with you.
Rob
[> [> Re: Rob, I've been
ranting against this pov since Day 1!!! -- Caroline, 17:14:39
12/05/02 Thu
I remember those posts, and pretty darn fabulous they were!
[> [> [> Hugs to you
both. Your kindnesses to me is always appreciated -- Rahael,
02:33:58 12/06/02 Fri
[> This Writer shows her
issues more than anyone elses, IMO. -- Briar Rose, 18:04:01
12/05/02 Thu
To take the lengthy hsitory of the Vampire in literature and reduce
it to "racial minorities" is obviously more about her
own issues than the majority of the public.
The Vampire in literature and history has always been about human
sexual repression being challenged by the seduction of an evil/morally
corrupt (or you might just say "more open) "Other"
that takes away the repression in the "victim" and usually
the "victim" is in some way drawing/allowing the Vampire
to seduce and "intercourse" with them.
Deamons and Vampires are the classic struggle between good and
evil. I have never seen anything that turns deamons and Vampires
into "racial stereotypes" nor that would lead me to
believe that was the intention (and I'm a sucker for these types
of books!*L)
I agree that the terms "black" and "white"
are outdated and based in lots of different types of chauvanism
and bigotry and should be used in any circmstance. Even more so
because nothing is "balck" and "white"
in life. It is all gray at heart.
Sorry - can't even begin to figure out where this writer is coming
from with her analogies on this subject. She's entitled to her
opinion, but I can't see where she even proved the point she was
trying to make.
[> [> Everyone has been
making good points. I'll chime in here. -- Cactus Watcher,
08:09:27 12/06/02 Fri
Academics are humans just like everybody else. Thematic literary
criticism that goes beyond the actual overt content of the work
of art is always problematic. If a person is deeply interested
in a topic everything they look at in any context begins to look
like it relates to that topic. Whether it is their personal religion,
their personal philosophy, personal passion, or personal fears,
it always colors the way they look at the piece of art. For example
we've all heard people rave on about what an abstract painting
means. Actually the painting means nothing one way or the other
in itself. All we can say is what each of us individually sees
or doesn't see in it. (In an abstract painting even the artist's
opinion really doesn't count more than anyone else's.) The same
is true about literature. For a particular person to say that
Buffy is about race in their own opinion is okay, just as its
okay for our friend frisby to see Nietzsche all over Buffy, and
others of us to see Christian symbolism in everything. And we
can learn from them when they point out what they see. But, the
problem is that academics including me have a bad habit of acting
like everyone must see everything the same way. Just don't take
us too seriously when we do that concerning something as subjective
as 'hidden' agendas in art. Buffy has plenty of overt issues for
people to get serious about, like death, good and evil, rape,
parenting, growing up...
[> [> Academic writing
is weird -- luna, 08:15:02 12/06/02 Fri
It sort of requires a defendable thesis, whereas the writing on
this board for example allows wandering, self-correction, ambiguity,
etc.
For an academic paper, you've got to come up with some "original"
take on something and present an argument for it. This forces
writers into some weird positions, hardening their arguments,
blinding them to complexities.
Conversations, such as we have on this board, on the contrary,
encourage examining multiple interpretations, accepting contrary
evidence, incorporating contradictions, capitulating when wrong,
etc. A much better form of communication, but doesn't lead to
tenure and promotion.
[> Otherness Without Distinction
-- Buffyboy, 01:04:07 12/06/02 Fri
The problem I often have with analyses that involve the idea of
Otherness is that the idea of the Other is often far too undifferentiated
and indistinct. From the point of view of many of these analyses
any attribute that is not part of the Norm (the Norm being understood
as Western, White, Male, Middle Class, Christian, or whatever
one wants to toss into the category of the normal or dominate)
is seen as somehow good, an opposition to oppression and exploitation.
It would then follow that since Vampires are other than the norm
in a number of ways (they drink blood, there're serial killers,
they're feared by members of normal society, etc.) they should
be seen as victims of oppression and become a stand-in for other
oppressed groups (Women, Blacks, the Working Class, etc). Yet
such as assimilation is absolutely perverse. Simply put: not all
forms of Otherness are good. Simply being outside the norm is
no guarantee that your cause is just or that your particular cause
even deserves general recognition and consideration. Just think
of the obvious examples: the KKK in America and various neo-Nazi
groups in Germany to use what I hope are non-controversial examples.
The members of such groups nearly always see themselves as fighting
a heroic struggle against the norms of the dominant society and
just as often they see themselves as victims of its oppression.
Yet the moral basis of their positions, while it may in some sense
be other than the norm, is also simply indefensible.
Though it is undoubtedly important to develop one's capacity to
see oneself from the standpoint of the Other as well as to respect
many of the various forms of Otherness in our world, it does not
follow that the admonition to put your self in the shoes of the
Other is always good advise. If those shoes are the shoes of the
Vampire, the racist, the sexist, the oppressor, etc. then they
will give off an awful stench. To assimilate these types of Otherness
to those Others who rightfully struggle against their oppression
and lack of recognition is, as I said above, simply perverse and
does a grave injustice to these legitimate struggles.
[> Applicability and allegory
-- Tchaikovsky, 03:10:58 12/06/02 Fri
I think the reason why the essay is wrong is because it doesn't
only deny other interpretations of what we do see, but it also
ignores the actual intentions of the writers. To me, the continued
supernatural concepts in Buffy are not a sledgehammer one-thing-only
metaphor throughout the show. Both magic and vampirism are both
used literally, and used as several different layers of metaphor.
So it's a fair point to say that vampires have been used in a
particular episode as a minority, (can't think of one off the
top of my head though), but it denies the beautiful layeredness
of the series to see that metaphor as overarching.
TCH
[> There is a very small
kernel of truth here... -- KdS, 05:02:56 12/06/02 Fri
The big contrast between BtVS and AtS now is in the presentation
of demons in general - BtVS still tends to view demons as evil
or grey at best, but AtS has them all over the moral spectrum.
Considering episodes like Hero (although the Scourge are
pure demons rather than pure human, which makes a difference)
and very specifically That Old Gang Of Mine one could suggest
that AtS sometimes treats demons as a whole as an analogue
to racial and cultural minorities. They're all over the moral
spectrum just like humans - some are conciously good, some conciously
evil, a lot of them just trying to make their way in the world
like everyone else. However, a lot of humans tend to judge them
all by the worst members of their culture - who are most visible
to those who don't bother to look around them.
I, and quite a few writers I've read, have a very big problem
with the scene in Forgiveness where Angel is about to torture
Linwood and Lorne starts talking about it being wrong because
Linwood is human and not "some slimy demon". Considering
the number of good demons we've seen, including Lorne himself,
that line has a very nasty ring even without the extra squick
that it's coming from a non-human character. Essentially, this
is the hazard of episodes like That Old Gang of Mine -
they grey things up for the purposes of a single episode in a
way that creates serious problems for the series as a whole -
for example, what does it mean that the AI crew just steams in
and massacres the demon punks in Loyalty when to this viewer
there could have been a more peaceful solution to the problem?
So yes, the interpretation is problematic, but to some extent
the scriptwriters themselves have been tossing metaphors around
without seriously thinking of the possible results.
[> [> Re: There is a
very small kernel of truth here... -- Rob, 09:09:51 12/06/02
Fri
I don't think that the greying mucks up the whole mythology of
the series, because I think the term demon needs to be
taken literally. At its base level, before any metaphors or symbols
are attached to it, these characters are literal demons. Yes,
they are different races of demons, so there are race issues there,
but they're not the same as human races, and, for the most part,
demons are (a) evil and (b) not held to the normal rules of society--ya
can't incarcerate them...too strong. At times, AI have made mistakes,
and hurt demons who were good, or at least not violent at the
moment. But, when dealing with demons, you usually have to think
the worst first. Even in "That Old Gang of Mine," the
frightened, helpless-looking "Oh my God! Oh my God!"
demon ended up morphing into that huge monster and choming Gio's
head off.
There are good demons, but it seems that these sects evolved and
"humanized" over time, perhaps by exposure to humans
for centuries and centuries. But these sects are in the minority
(A ha! Minorities being shown as good!). Demons first and foremost
do not have souls i.e. moral compasses. Even the seemingly kind,
jovial, peaceful Straley family from "The Bachelor Party"
ended up having that not too pleasant "eating of wife's former
husband's brains" thingy.
Re: Lorne's line in "Forgiveness," I didn't have a problem
with it, because I don't think he said it as a slur as in, "Those
slimy demons!" I think what he meant was that, were Angel
to be torturing a demon, it would be a slimy, not-good, evil one.
Rob
[> [> [> Have to disagree...
-- KdS, 09:28:14 12/06/02 Fri
I don't think that demons in AtS are being shown as inherently
evil any more (and there's a question as to whether they're soulless
or have some demonic equivalent). There've been enough decent
demons shown to make it dangerous to assume. The AI team's response
to the Pilea situation was to attempt to halt racial discrimination,
not to try to claim the dimension for humanity, which suggests
that they accepted species not to have any inherent moral implication.
As early as Season 1, I thought that the Strahelys (sp?) were
intended as a satire on naive multiculturalism, not as a general
message that you can't trust them demons. Anyway, once the confusion
had been sorted out, the AI team seemed perfectly happy to draw
a line under the situation instead of seeking any retribution.
Some human cultures have had equally nasty practices in the past
(and some still do today). If all demons are inherently evil,
why does the AI team do business for them with relatively little
checking of their bona fides (the demons with the squatter mid-S3,
say)?
Biting Gio's head off? Any jury would have acquitted on grounds
of self-defense.
And I did hear the tone of Lorne's reference to "slimy demons"
as derogatory.
Quote from
Wed night's Taken (by little girl narrator) that made me think
of Spike. -- Silky, 10:12:53 12/06/02 Fri
"I have this idea about why people do the terrible things
they do. Same reason little kids push each other in the schoolyard.
If you're the one doing the pushing, then you're not going to
be the one who gets pushed.
"If you're the monster, then nothing will be waiting in the
shadows to jump out at you. Pretty simple really - people do the
terrible things they do because they're scared."
This made me think of Spike because I have seen him (since Pangs)
as a character who feared feeling afraid and vulnerable. William
was vulnerable - to the rejection and verbal sling and arrows
of his peer group. That's why he reveled in his newfound strength
as a vampire - he didn't have to be vulnerable anymore. He could
pick a fight and win. And that became part of his big bad persona.
The chip made Spike vulnerable again - at first he thought to
everything, but then only to humans (and the slayer) once he discovered
he could fight demons.
Someone mentioned Spike being concerned with his reputation. I
thought something slightly different - that he has made the effort
to be feared by advertising himself as the big bad, mistakenly
substituting fear for respect. (Why not? Most of the bosses/supervisors
and Queen Bee co-workers I have had made the same mistake. It
works on many people, too.) But being feared still kept him safe.
As William, I don't think he felt safe (I don't mean physically,
but emotionally). As Spike, he felt safe - at least until he heard
about slayers and then his obsession began.
But, when he was chipped, he felt vulnerable again. His fear is
striking in Pangs. Soon after, he tries to kill himself. He finds
other ways to feel safe, eventually trying to hook up with the
Scoobies - and Buffy - only to be rejected over and over.
I believe that for almost two years, the writing was designed
to make Spike a sympathetic character. At least it seemed that
way to me. I don't think I'm the only one who felt that way. Starting
with AYW, suddenly we were supposed to believe Spike was bad -
well sometimes. I saw him as sad and frustrated, not evil, after
all the build-up to Spike, the trying-so-hard-not-to-be-bad vampire.
Some have pointed to Crush as proof that Spike was still bad.
I saw instead, someone sucked back into the realm of Druscilla
ONLY after Buffy cruelly rejected his admission of his feelings.
Still, he didn't stay in Dru's world long and had a difficult
time forcing himself to drink the dead girl at the Bronze. Granted
his means of proving his love for Buffy might seem off (though
really, why wouldn't the slayer be happy to see Dru offed - Spike's
pov). I have always wondered how different Spike's journey would
have been had the Scoobies accepted him into the group - and kept
him there even when Buffy returned.
But, not for me the furrowed brow. Revisionist history of Spike's
un-life or not, I have to say the perceived retcon does make me
somewhat unhappy. We had a character whose journey seemed to mean
something, who (at least those of us who like the character) we
could root for, who we sympathize with (hey, like Buffy, I have
a yen for the underdog), whose desire and need for acceptance
is something we can identify with, and who could help Buffy and
provide her with some of the insight she needs. Now we have Spike
the rapist, totally ignoring that much vampire myth links sex
and drinking blood (Bram Stoker and Forever Knight, not to mention
Graduation Day II).
As long as Joss is directing the course of the story (as I hope
he is), I guess I'll have to trust him. Maybe the writers don't
get that 'rape' is a topic some of us would prefer not to have
pushed in our faces. I just hope the ME people all remember how
unhappy the fans were with the end of Xena. I didn't watch the
show, but friends who did swore never to watch the reruns after
Xena got beheaded.
Go Wisewoman - I agree! Self preservation in the no. 1 instinct
of all species.
Interesting
comment from ASH interview... -- Darby, 11:30:35 12/06/02
Fri
From
http://www.bronzeshelter.com/showdetails.php?contentid=1580
There's a lot here, much of it interesting, but I wanted to highlight
this (the italics are mine):
"I'm truly flattered, (but) the bottom line about writing
is conflict. If you have no conflict, you have no situation really
that's interesting. For Giles to simply stay there would not have
presented the challenges to the writers. Because when I said
I wanted to leave and Joss said 'Yeah, sure,' he then turned round
and said 'This is just the time you should be staying and I said
you could go. What do we do with that?' And the way he built
that into the plot, I thought was brilliant, really absolute genius.
And he's always been one to rise to the occasion. When Seth (Green)
had to go off and shoot a movie, and suddenly Joss was faced with
losing Oz, out of that the Tara/Willow relationship was born.
And he's always worked very well with whatever cards he's dealt."
Regular viewers of the series might be surprised at just how much
of the meticulously detailed plotting comes about as a result
of production issues and the availability of the acting corps.
Season Two's "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" episode,
in which Xander's attempts at a love spell yield unexpected and
very funny consequences, was written specifically to fill in for
Sarah Michelle Gellar's absence while she was appearing as a guest
on Saturday Night Live. One of Whedon's great gifts is making
those small changes yield long-lasting results. Witness the Tara/Willow
relationship, or the spell which turned Buffy into a rat coming
back in Season Three's "Gingerbread."
Nice to see that we weren't the only ones (other than Buffy)saying
Giles' departure was wrong (sort of).
[> Re: Interesting comment
from ASH interview... -- MaeveRigan, 11:38:16 12/06/02
Fri
Nice to see that we weren't the only ones (other than Buffy)saying
Giles' departure was wrong (sort of).
It also illustrates, possibly, that maybe Buffy was right when
she told Giles, "You're wrong" in believing that he
had to leave in order for her to learn to stand alone.
At least, in an ideal world (or even the real world), he might
at least have written a letter or e-mailed or called now and than.
But in the Buffyverse, Buffy has to walk her own lonesome valley.
And I suppose we're to assume Giles is busily at work with the
coven, preparing (though he may not know it yet) for Willow's
meltdown.
So in the end, they were both right.
Ah, fiction!
All Things
Gothic on BtVS -- slain, 18:15:23 12/05/02 Thu
Preamble:
Once again it's another long one. The Gothic was something I'd
forgotten about, but which I was reminded of when Season 7 started
to veer away from the misleading postmodern-lightness tack that
Joss had claimed it would follow, ala Season 1. I think this may
be nearly as long as my Spike essay. The title is open to debate,
with 'Buffy vs. the Gothic' and a variety of horrible puns also
possibilities, though at the moment I like this homage. Thanks
goes to shadowkat, ponygirl and others for inspiring me in some
of the directions.
+ALL THINGS GOTHIC ON BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER+
What do I mean by 'The Gothic'? The literary gothic was a genre
in the 18th and 19th centuries in Britain, which developed as
a reaction against the Age of Reason and what we might think of
as the rise of science and rationalism, with famous authors including
Bram Stoker, Mary Shelley, Anne Radcliffe and Matthew Lewis, and
Edgar Allen Poe in America. It was about anxiety, the supernatural,
morality and the limits of existence; often it was about extremes
and the extraordinary. Today it usually refers to people who wear
fishnet stockings and say they prefer night to day, but while
the term isn't often used to describe modern fiction, everything
that makes up the Gothic is alive in well in literature, film
and TV; not just in the work of Anne Rice, but everywhere. Replace
the term with 'horror', and you get better idea of the Gothic's
pervading influence.
HORROR VS. TERROR
If we think of horror, we think of movies which aren't necessarily
scary, but which are often capable of shocking the audience. Horror
means lots of blood, lots of monsters and probably some running
around while being chased by things. But 'terror' is an equally
important part of the Gothic, arguably more so. Horror is about
being graphic, about being disgusting or horrific, its power in
presenting visceral images or death and murder and an unambiguous
supernatural. Terror, on the other hand, is more subtle; it isn't
interested in showing so much, but rather in building up fear
and apprehension; terror is mental, whereas horror is more physical.
The majority of the most powerful Horror-genre films are actually
about terror, not horror; The Exorcist, for example, and The Omen
both use terror to build up, before some scenes of horror. Horror
is what B-movies and cheap fiction thrives on; gore and guts,
and probably some sex, too. Terror can make you afraid, whereas
horror can shock you.
Neither mode is the more gothic; most gothic novels use a mixture
of the two, to some extent. Buffy uses horror as its basic mode,
because it's based on the tradition of Horror films; which means
that vampires and monsters are usually up front and fairly horrific,
and that the supernatural is fairly unambiguous. However the show
has also uses terror frequently, often in deliberate contrast
to the less deep horror elements.
In Season 2, Angel's mental torture of Buffy was an exercise in
terror, using psychological means and based around small but subtle
tactics such as the bundle of black-ribboned roses. Terror doesn't
usually make the object of the terror clear, or even make its
existence concrete; it's all about the imagination of both the
character and the readers. In the episode 'Amends', Angel's mind
is manipulated by an obscure force (the First) which uses subtle
means to achieve a state of confusion and fear; in Season 7, the
same tactics are used again. While terror typically exists primarily
in the mind of the characters, the nature of Buffy means that
the First is more explicit and visible.
In 'Amends', Buffy herself is confronted by the First. Having
abandoned terror, it reverts to horror, trying to shock Buffy
by making itself visually frightening. Buffy isn't impressed;
her reaction demonstrates the specific way the Gothic works in
the show. Instead of terror being built up, it is frequently undercut
by humour, and horror isn't often expected to be shocking. The
novel 'Dracula' was an exercise in terror, but the same terror
can't be brought to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, because this is
the Age of Reason; the Gothic has relied on superstition, and
on the believability of its fantastic situations. But in a postmodern
world it's less easy to be terrified by something, certainly not
a TV show with advert breaks every ten minutes. Similarly horror
is less horrific, because audiences no longer accept that shocking
images are 'real'. Buffy plays with this idea, introducing monsters
that are not horrific, by subverting them or by acknowledging
that they're fictional archetypes. The episode 'Buffy vs. Dracula'
revisited the most famous Gothic novel, but while Dracula was
portrayed with some seriousness, ultimately he was undercut by
humour and by the acknowledgement that he was a fictional character.
THE UNHEIMLICH
While we are no longer frightened by many of the things that the
Gothic has often relied upon, the unhiemlich or uncanny still
holds as much power as it is has always done. Cliched devices
for building up terror, such as the use of atmospheric music or
lonely dark corridors, have been subverted by the show as much
as devices for horror have. But all things unhiemlich are used
when the show really wants to step into the Gothic and become
more deeply involved in it. Freud's idea of the unhiemlich centred
around not unfamiliar or alien things such as werewolves and demons,
but around the familiar, and around things which are both difficult
to define, and difficult to escape from. Something which is familiar,
but also frightening. 'Creepy' is often a good adjective to describe
things which are unhiemlich.
'Hush' is an episode which uses the power of the unhiemlich to
create terror. While using some of the typical Gothic cinema effects
(background music, dark lighting and shadows, unwanted silence),
it relies on the making of the familiar seem terrifying. The Gentlemen
themselves are not conventional horrific monsters, but more humanlike;
they look like us, but they aren't us. They mimic human politeness,
and the precision of surgeons. They wear clothes, but don't walk.
'Hush' uses the unexplained, and its effect on the everyday; Buffy
and Willow wake up on a normal morning, but can't speak. Everything
is at once familiar but also disturbing or foreign.
While 'Hush' existed within a relatively recognisable Horror genre
style, 'The Body' was an episode which used terror in a less obvious
way. Things which are unhiemlich are often things which seems
to be neither one thing or another, neither animated nor inanimate,
dead or alive. A familiar character since the start of the show,
on her death Joyce's body becomes unhiemlich to Buffy; is the
body her mother, or just a dead thing? The moment at which she
comes to the realisation that her mother is 'the body' is the
moment at which the terror is resolved; rationalising terror often
leads to its resolution, as if by understanding something negates
its power. For Dawn, the moment of unhiemlich and terror comes
when she reaches out to her mother's body; lying there in the
mortuary, Joyce doesn't seem to be real, or to be dead or alive.
Death is a very unhiemlich event, because while it's inevitable
and familiar to everyone, it's also unexplained, uncanny, disturbing.
'The Body' deals with the relationship to the body of someone
who has died, and the fear and dread its uncertain and undetermined
nature brings.
DOPPELGOTHLAND
Another aspect of Freud's uncanny which has particular reference
to Buffy is the doppelganger, and this can mean a 'split personality'
as well as the double self. The Gothic uses the doppelganger to
illustrate anxieties or aspects of a character's personality,
or about the human condition. There have been many obvious doppelgangers
in Buffy; in 'Dopplegangland' Willow's doppelganger made physical
many of her desires and her so-called 'dark side'. Xander's split
doppelganger in 'The Replacement' portrayed the good and bad points
of his character, both charming and lacking in confidence. Angel/Angelus
was about both Angel's inner darkness, but more pointedly about
the inner darkness and cruelty of men (a feminist statement),
and also generally about the duality of all humans; Oz/Werewolf
made the same points, as did the other selves in 'Beauty and the
Beasts' and Xander's hyena possession in 'The Pack'. Spike's duality
in 'Sleeper' represented not only his own fears about returning
to evil, but the fear that he would be uncontrollable, unable
to control 'the beast'; much as 'Wild at Heart' represented the
same fear for Oz.
However many less explicit Gothic doppelgangers have been shown.
The First Slayer in Buffy's dream in 'Restless' made visible her
fears about being a 'killer', of being someone with power but
not control, and of losing herself in her slaying. Many other
characters exist in part as doubles of others; Dawn is Buffy's
double, initially illustrating her negative points, namely becoming
absorbed in herself and in her Otherness or supernatural nature
and seeing herself as set apart from others. Tara initially represented
an earlier, less confident Willow, with Willow's bringing of Tara
out of herself as symbolic of Willow's own growth. In Season 6
the Troika are the double of the Scooby Gang; what they could
become if they ceased to take the fantastic elements of their
life as seriously, and treated them as fiction rather than 'reality',
which each Scooby representing elements of Buffy, Willow and Xander.
Warren illustrates Buffy's fears of becoming a cold, emotionless
killer incapable of love and using others rather than understanding
them. Jonathan is Willow's double, lacking in confidence and led
by others rather than being in control of his own power. Andrew
represents Xander's fears of being insignificant, the third wheel.
SO'CAL DREAMING
The dream state, and the idea of the prophetic or psychologically
significant dream is a key Gothic feature. Dreams, like doppelgangers
or other manifestations, demonstrate the inner mind of the characters,
as well as having supernatural elements. The four dreams in 'Restless'
were both psychological, and prophetic; they illustrated the character's
fears (Willow's fear of being 'found out' as less confident then
she really was; Xander's of being trapped in his basement and
staying the least intelligent or useful Scooby, Giles' fear of
not being able to help or understand Buffy, and Buffy's fear at
becoming a killer with bad hair), and the dreams also foreshadow
events to come in both a literal and emotional way, in terms of
actual plotlines and character's individual feelings.
HOUSE
The House, mansion or castle is always a powerful Gothic metaphor.
Typically the house represents the emotions of the people who
live in it, which is why terrifying castles and run-down mansions
are so popular, as they aptly represent the turbulent emotions
of Gothic characters. There are two main buildings in Buffy; Sunnydale
High, and the Summers' house. The Summers' house often literally
represents the turmoil of the characters, particularly in 'Conversations
with Dead People' where it represents that disorder of Dawn's
mind, and the confusion of the events. However the different levels
of the house also have significance; lighting is a key feature
of Gothic cinema, and in the bedrooms it can be either airy or
dark, mirroring the events being acted out. The basement is always
significant in the Summers' house. In 'Normal Again', its dark,
cluttered nature symbolises Buffy's own confusion and anxiety;
in 'Never Leave Me', the underground surroundings of Buffy and
Spike's conversation suggest that something is buried or hidden.
Sunnydale High is a more complex Gothic building than the archetypical
castle. In past seasons, it wasn't lived in, and presented a bland
and acceptably non-Gothic facade; the turmoil was within, and
Buffy's role, in episodes such as 'Passion' or 'The Zeppo', was
to keep the Gothic manifestations of mental turmoil from escaping.
School was hell, but didn't appear so. As a modern Gothic metaphor,
the school is more subtle than the classic 'honkin' big castle',
though clearly the giant snakes and many-headed beasties that
appear in and around the school are less so. In Season 7 the new
school has changed, by dint of being inhabited. Spike's mental
turmoil was represented by the corporeal spirits in 'Lessons',
and the earth-floored maze-like basement is more explicitly representative
of the unrest, amongst the people who go to school in the building,
than the fairly innocuous Sunnydale High Mark I was.
GOING TO EXTREMES
Extremity, the limits of human morality and existence, is perhaps
the most significant Gothic feature, and what created the genre
in the first place; it was a reaction against reason and moderation.
The Gothic is about another, less polite or 'realistic' world,
in which the unreal is both real and dangerous, and in which the
characters don't behave in a 'normal' way, or aren't able to.
The Buffyverse is in this way a very Gothic universe, in that
it frequently seeks to test the limits of being human. Vampires,
as well as being unhiemlich and other-but-familiar, are also extreme
humans; horrific, in their lack of morality and their violence,
but also capable of understanding both human emotions and human
morals. Buffy herself lives her life in an extreme way, living
with terror and horror; the other Scoobies' arcs have often explored
the depths and heights of humanity. The Gothic seeks to exaggerate
and to dramatise the internal in an external way; in the Season
6 finale, Willow's inner struggle is taken to a literal level
with the whole world becoming an extended house-type metaphor
for both her angst, and more generally that of humanity as a whole.
The Gothic always pushes the envelope as far as intensity of emotion
is concerned, and in the destructive and powerful events that
dramatise the emotions of the characters.
Limits of love, linked to pain and pleasure, are explored in the
show through sadism and masochism, often a Gothic preoccupation.
The relationship between Spike and Drusilla exists on this edge,
as does his relationship with Buffy. Both explore the limits of
love in relation to morality. Love is a powerful, destructive
force as much as it is healing; in a Gothic world, love is frequently
close to hate, jealousy and revenge. Damnation and redemption
are Gothic themes, with the first often being the most common;
Gothic characters often subscribe to the Calvinist idea that every
human being is effectively damned from birth, and in the Buffyverse
certainly vampires can be seen as the damned, in a way which demons
in general are not. Love as a positive force is not typically
a Gothic feature, but rather the type of mutual abuse that characterised
Buffy and Spike's relationship in Season 6 typifies a Gothic romance.
THE POSTMODERN GOTHIC
Many other aspects associated with the Gothic are represented
in Buffy (the villain hero, pursued heroine), and are also often
subverted. Buffy's relationship with the Gothic is always set
alongside its relationship with postmodernism, or simply with
it being modern; the Gothic insists that terror and horror must
be given power and credence by the narrative, and that we must
be effected by these things, whereas postmodernism points out
that these things are not real, but are part of generic modes
which the audience understands. Buffy exists within the Gothic,
but often steps outside it to view the idea of terror, horror
and other Gothic features more objectively, or ironically. Doppelgangers
are as much a feature for comedy as they are for terror and portent,
for example. But while some features of the Gothic (those most
associated with the Horror film genre) are sometimes pastiched
by the show, in fact Buffy remains true to the Gothic principle
of a narrative where the supernatural is a metaphor for the psychology
of the characters, and where a darker, hidden side of life, and
the limits of morality are explored.
[> Excellent, slain, simply
excellent! -- Dead Soul, 21:05:57 12/05/02 Thu
[> Honestly, that essay
was as good or better than anything in "Fighting the Forces"...
-- Rob, 22:18:47 12/05/02 Thu
...and a lot less snooty! I loved what you said about each character
of the Troika mirroring aspects of the core Scooby Gang. I'd never
thought of it that way before.
Your essay was very insightful, and was a great examination of
"Buffy'," in a way I haven't seen done before. Thanks
for posting it!
Rob
[> A little bit more on
the House -- Tchaikovsky, 03:27:04 12/06/02 Fri
You mention the house in Gothic horror. It's interesting that
the most obviously Gothic castle/mansion is an ironic nod.
From Psyche Buffy vs Dracula:
EXT. DRACULA'S CASTLE - NIGHT (NIGHT FOUR)
Riley and Giles arrive at the castle. Gaze up at the huge , imposing
edifice. A beat. They can't believe their eyes.
RILEY
(facetious)
I've lived in Sunnydale a couple
years now. Know what I never
noticed before?
GILES
A castle?
RILEY
A big, honking castle.
They walk up to the front door, enter.
This is a very funny quote, but it also suggests something to
the audience reading along Gothic lines. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
enjoys rejecting traditional stock concepts of the Gothic, even
though the underlying themes are rooted in the genre. Here, the
Castle is shown to be Other. It doesn't really belong in Sunnydale,
only being imposed for Drcaula. In Buffy, the Gothic castles are
just normal buildings.
'High School is Hell'. Well, yes the experience is. And, analagously,
the High School building itself is the 'unheimlich' mansion. The
apparently innocent space in which terror comes to play for the
school's general population and horror representing terror for
the Scooby Gang.
'Home is where the Heart is'. Emotions play out in the Summers
house- and they also sometimes have big, black bugs from outer
space. Buffy's house is a typical American frontier house. Nicely
hand-crafted, but nothing special. Just a 'normal' place.
In Buffy, we are shown time and again that the things that sometimes
appear scariest, and the things that are sometimes traditionally
portrayed as scariest, are not. So the Master's candle-y Church
and Dracula's castle are throw-away sets. The horror is terror,
and the terror happens in real life.
Just commenting on one aspect of a brilliant and revealing essay,
Slain. Thanks.
TCH
[> That was great! --
ponygirl, 09:34:01 12/06/02 Fri
The interesting thing about Buffy vs. Dracula is that while it's
as close to camp as the show has ever come, it still speaks to
the power that the Gothic, the terror, possesses. Buffy can mock
Dracula and any monster all she wants, but the darkness they represent
still calls to her. It exposes that post-modern detachment is
at times just a very thin protection from larger, more primal
forces. In BvsD, Buffy may have defeated the ultimate Gothic Dark
Prince(bater), but she then goes home to find... Dawn.
"Everything is at once familiar but also disturbing or foreign."
Something's always lurking underneath, worlds can be changed in
a heartbeat.
Great essay, slain!
[> [> Horror vs. Terror
(slightly OT but possibly still relevant) -- Thomas the Skeptic,
11:08:44 12/06/02 Fri
Like everyone else who has responded, I thought your essay was
outstanding! (And, of course, I printed a copy to go in my personal
collection of great posts on the ATPOBTVS message board.). By
the by, your comparison/contrast of the similarities and differences
between horror and terror reminded me of a quote I read in an
interview with Boris Karloff years ago. The interviewer asked
him what the difference between horror and terror was and he said
(paraphrase here) "Horror is walking down a city street and
suddenly seeing the person in front of you being stabbed. Terror
is realizing that the attacker is turning around to stab you next!".
That always stuck in my mind as a good rule of thumb to distinguish
them, with terror being the more visceral,and immediate, of the
two. That is, until I read your essay and re-examined my assumptions.
Thanks for expanding my horizons (and definitions)!
[> [> [> Re: Horror
vs. Terror (slightly OT but possibly still relevant) [spoilers
for 7.7 i think] -- slain, 16:55:19 12/06/02 Fri
I've read that Karloff quote - it's certainly a good piece of
rhetoric. The way I'd understand it is that horror is more seeing
something, whereas terror is more personal. You don't put yourself
in the place of the person getting eviscerated, you just watch.
Whereas with terror, you're put in the place of the person.
The actor who played the lead Gentleman and Gnarl uses terror
very well - we feel like we're in the place of the young man who
gets opperated on in 'Hush', and in Willow's when he's eating
her skin. Horror distances us, but terror really doesn't.
[> Re: All Things Gothic
on BtVS -- Sentinel,
11:42:37 12/06/02 Fri
To Slain's impressive listing of Buffyverse doppelgangers, a minor
quibble: In The Replacement, the second Xander is used thru much
of the episode as a "false doppelganger" of the type
that Nabokov seems to have invented (first in his Russian novels,
e.g. Despair, and later in the more sophisticated usage of Lolita).
The writers were setting up a straw man, someone who we and the
original Xander are expected to believe is an evil demon, intent
on doing harm/rape, especially to Anya, but who in the denouement
is revealed to be no more evil or guilty than any other character
(in Lolita, the straw man was Clare Quilty, or Clearly Guilty--but
was he?).
Whether, in this special usage, the technique can actually be
an example of a true Gothic doppelganger, or a post-modern parodic
double, is a question I leave to the semantic entanglements of
other quibblers.
[> [> What's interesting
about "The Replacement" in this context.... -- cjl,
13:16:52 12/06/02 Fri
....is that we're in the POV of ButtMonkey!Xander for most of
the episode. If either of the two Xanders conforms to the definition
of the classic gothic doppelganger, it's BM!Xander, not Suave!Xander.
BM!Xander is the Shadow: the desperate, insecure, quip-happy (and
yet, strangely endearing) part of Xander he's been trying to outgrow
for the length of the series.
[I recall a Lovecraft short story (sorry, blanking on the title)
which is entirely from the point of view of a horrible monster
who's just awakened and is wandering through a dank castle, wondering
who he is what the heck is going on. At the end of the story,
he finally gets a good look at himself in the mirror, and we kind
of feel bad for the guy: maybe he was better off not knowing.]
"The Replacement" isn't your classic doppleganger tale,
but a faithful-in-spirit modern update. (I'd classify it with
modern SF tales like Harlan Ellison's Shatterday.)
[> [> Re: All Things
Gothic on BtVS -- slain, 17:04:41 12/06/02 Fri
I haven't read Nabokov, but I agree that the Replacement confirms
to the idea of the false doppelganger. However I think it's still
Gothic, because of the reason for the doppels - to show things
about the character. The doubles make the point that the way Xander
views himself (as 'Butt-monkey Xander', thanks cjl!) is different
to the way others often view him (as charming, sexy, capable Xander).
'Restless' was about his fears, but 'The Replacement' marks, for
me, the beginning of his realising about his strengths.
Thanks for everyone for the kind comments - I think we can let
this return to the archives, now!
[> CutPrint ....will respond
later...and thanks -- shadowkat, 11:48:33 12/06/02 Fri
Nice to know I inspired such an interesting and creative post!!
[> Preserving the thread
-- Masq, 16:45:23 12/06/02 Fri
[> Belated spoilers for
7.9 in first post -- slain, 16:52:36 12/06/02 Fri
[> Re: All Things Gothic
on BtVS (Spoilers to NLM 7.9) -- shadowkat, 21:04:22 12/07/02
Sat
Interesting post. I love your points about dopplegangers
and the house. Also the idea of love in the gothic sense.
I watched Stanely Kubrick Biography on BBCAmerica tonight and
they were discussing how he broached the modern gothic with The
Shining and struggled to find the right music and setting for
it. Never could quite find a good match to set the tone.
I think in film, particularly gothic - tone is important and I
think Buffy like the Shining is the modern or rather post-modern
version of the gothic. (I've never really understood the concept
of post-modern...so will stay away from that in fear of misstepping.)
Typically the house represents the emotions of the people who
live in it, which is why terrifying castles and run-down mansions
are so popular, as they aptly represent the turbulent emotions
of Gothic characters.
In The Shining - they decided to go for an off-putting old hotel
in Oregon as opposed to the white stately structure in Colorado
which Stephen King had in fact based his book on. Must admit the
structure in Oregon is far more frightening. Another house that
has always made me think of "gothic" is the house in
Robert Wise's 1960 film The Haunting based on Shirly Jackson's
novel of the same name.
The house in that novel is the horror - it contains within its
walls and windows and structure the pain and suffering of all
that died within its walls. Subtly through lighting and odd camera
angles Wise gets across the terror of the house - it's not bloody
and gruesome like the 2000 movie of the same name. This version
builds the terror slowly through the tension of music and the
actors. The difference between psychological terror and "horror".
In Buffy - the scene with Dawn in the house during CwDP seems
to build quietly as well, first with thumping then with out and
out destruction. By the end of the episode, Dawn is curled on
the floor, gasping and wondering what is real.
In contrast the harbingers attack of the house in NLM is more
horror - with fighting and no quiet build up. While watching the
Principal descend to the basement and remove Jonathan's body is
somewhat creepy terror - the epic torture and crufixion of Spike
on the wheel is horror in all
its glory, blood dripping from his wounds, etc, and Nosfertu vamp
staring up at him. I mention Nosfertu because it was also in the
Gothic tradition - a truly horrible creature that rose from the
depths of the earth, feeding - not the romantic handsome yet evil
prince later played by Frank Langella and Gary Oldman in the Dracula
movies.
Many other aspects associated with the Gothic are represented
in Buffy (the villain hero, pursued heroine), and are also often
subverted. Buffy's relationship with the Gothic is always set
alongside its relationship with postmodernism, or simply with
it being modern; the Gothic insists that terror and horror must
be given power and credence by the narrative, and that we must
be effected by these things, whereas postmodernism points out
that these things are not real, but are part of generic modes
which the audience understands. Buffy exists within the Gothic,
but often steps outside it to view the idea of terror, horror
and other Gothic features more objectively, or ironically.
Buffy seems to make fun of the "gothic" horror tradition.
In Buffy vs. Dracula she doesn't believe it is Dracula at first
- after all she comments - "I've meet a few pimply overweight
vamps claiming to be Lestat." Earlier in School Hard, Angel
tells Spike - that he got the slayer to leave him alone by pretending
to be good, holding Xander's exposed neck between them as the
prize. Spike responds: "It's amazing how many people fall
for that Ann Rice Stuff. What a world."
Then later in Lie to Me - both Spike and Angel look dismissively
upon the goth vamp wannabes. Angel comments on how they are just
children play-acting. They don't even know how to dress like us.
(Only to discover to his dismay one boy who does). And Spike?
He lets Chanterelle later Lily later Anne know that he's a monster
not some misunderstood romantic knight - ready to eat her.
Ford approachs Spike with the same romanticism -the old gothic
view of the villain - "now you say I only have 30 minutes
to live", Spike - "actually why don't I just kill you
now?" Ford has played it all out like a movie but the reality?
It's not quite what he expected. He dies. He rises.
And Buffy stakes him and he explodes into dust. He doesn't even
get the cool Pee Wee Herman death scene of the BTvs movie.
The commentary from the very beginning has been - yes romanticize
the vamps...but at your own peril.
In Season 2 - people are constantly commenting on how Angel is
yes a vampire, but a good vampire and he'll never hurt you. Cordy
says it throughout most of Halloween. Buffy mentions it in Lie
to Me. Then we have Surprise to Innocence - and well appears he
will hurt you. And Kendra may just be right - the only good vampire
is a dead vampire.
Or is it? Since Angel does come back and does help to save the
day, sort of.
In Btvs the villian hero does pursue the heroine...but not quite
in the same way. We don't have the romance of Dracula and Mina
or the Lestate and Louis being played out here.
And the girl is often as strong as or stronger than the guy.
That's another interesting point of "gothic" that Btvs
turns on its head - the female role. In most gothic traditions
- the girl is in danger. In the gothic romances -she is saved
by the guy who seems at first to be a villain.
The classics - Rebecca, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights don't end
that well and the female is actually far stronger, but not nearly
as strong or as empowered as Buffy. In constructing Buffy - Whedon
went out of his way to turn the idea of the small blond girl getting
killed or being saved by the boy on its head.
In Season 6 the Troika are the double of the Scooby Gang; what
they could become if they ceased to take the fantastic elements
of their life as seriously, and treated them as fiction rather
than 'reality', which each Scooby representing elements of Buffy,
Willow and Xander. Warren illustrates Buffy's fears of becoming
a cold, emotionless killer incapable of love and using others
rather than understanding them. Jonathan is Willow's double, lacking
in confidence and led by others rather than being in control of
his own power. Andrew represents Xander's fears of being insignificant,
the third wheel.
Finally someone points this out. I think we are seeing this odd
dynamic still being played out now. With some of the dopplegangers
oddly enough being incorporated into the characters or the characters
themselves becoming their own doppleganger.
I think with the First Evil playing each character in the story
-we'll see it even more. In CwDP we saw Cassie's evil doppleganger.
In Sleeper - we saw Spike's. Spike's split is seen in Sleeper
and NLM. We also see Buffy's in Sleeper and NLM with the First
Evil. But like in the Replacement - the dopplegangers aren't easily
detected. It's not like looking at Willow and VampWillow. ButtMonkey
Xander and Suave Xander look the same by the end of the Replacement.
Just as First Evil Spike and Spike are similarily dressed in the
basement of NLM. The use of dopplegangers in Btvs goes a step
beyond the gothic tradition - instead of just pointing out a character's
dark side - it's asking us who we are inside. Is Spike - a man
at heart or a demon with the face of a man. Is Spike's true face
the bumpy wrinklies or the smooth visage? Is Willow's the black-eyed
visage and black hair or the clear green and red hair? (not sure
if that made much sense - it's late and I think I'm rambling again.)
At any rate...great essay.
SK
Buffy's stake
in Wittgenstein's poker -- Tchaikovsky, 05:10:54 12/06/02
Fri
'People say again and again that philosophy doesn't really progress,
that we are still occupied with the same philosophical problems
as were the Greeks. But the peple who say that don't understand
why this has to be so. It is because our language has remained
the same and keeps seducing us into asking the same questions.
Ludwig Wittgenstein- explaining succinctly his 'language is the
problem' theory'
'The later Wittgenstein used to talk of 'puzzles', caused by the
philosophical misuse of language. I can only say that if I had
no serious philosophical problems and no hope of solving them,
I should have no excuse for being a philosopher: to my mind there
would be no apology for philosophy.'
Karl Popper, with a trade-mark dig at Wittgenstein, dismissing
language puzzles as part of the most pressing philosophical problems
of the 20th Century.
'Thank you for not giving me platitudes, but something that was
complex and dark and strong.'
Rahael in reply to Deb's startlingly powerful post down below
somewhere.
************** I need an OnM-ish line-break here. Imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery.
Litany
The soundtrack then was a litany - candlewick
bedspread three piece suite display cabinet -
and stiff-haired wives balanced their red smiles,
passing the catalogue. Pyrex. A tiny ladder
ran up Mrs Barr's American Tan leg, sly
like a rumour. Language embarrassed them.
The terrible marriages crackled, cellophane
round polyester shirts, and then The Lounge
would seem to bristle with eyes, hard
as the bright stones in engagement rings,
and sharp hands poised over biscuits as a word
was spelled out. An embarrassing word, broken
to bits, which tensed the air like an accident.
This was the code I learnt at my mother's knee, pretending
to read, where no one had cancer, or sex, or debts,
and certainly not leukaemia, which no one could spell.
The year a mass grave of wasps bobbed in a jam-jar;
a butterfly stammered itself in my curious hands.
A boy in the playground, I said, told me
to fuck off; and a thrilled, malicious pause
salted my tongue like an imminent storm. Then
uproar. I'm sorry, Mrs Barr, Mrs Hunt, Mrs Emery,
sorry, Mrs Raine. Yes, I can summon their names.
My mother's mute shame. The taste of soap.
Carol Ann Duffy (our real Poet Laureate) on language.
*********** Yes, quite infectious.
I've been shocked and deeply moved by this little board this week.
For several reasons. Things have hit me about it in the last week.
It is incredibly flexible. One thread can talk about people's
experiences of abuse, while another is, (not disrespectfully)
talking about foodstuffs made out of Buffy lines. There's a great
range of style. While being entirely composed of typed words,
I have felt part of a dislocated community, living together in
cyberspace, but so far apart in the world. And this week I feel
really indebted to everyone who had contributed to Deb's thread
on Death, Rape and the whole Controversial Thing, (as Rahael would
have it). So many people have put across experiences and opinions
based on them which have both been valuable to me, and almost
moved me to tears. I didn't feel I could contribute, as, being
a sheltered, middle class, young-ish student, I was simply worried
that I would lapse into default platitudes to cover up my naivety-
my inability to begin to imagine what some people have been through,
and my essential lack of words necessary to even acknowledge that,
in being on this board, I meet people who have experienced more
of the world than I have.
To summarise, it is an immense joy to me to read every single
post, of all natures, and it is a gift to me that anyone writes
here, (and of course, that they're able to. Somebody knight Masq.)
The inadequacy of language to explain things led me back to a
book I have just finished, called 'Wittgenstein's Poker'. It also
led me back to Carol Ann Duffy, my favourite contemporary poet.
How does language affect or constitute the great problems of philosophy?
How does language affect us? And how is language used in the Buffyverse?
The following ramble is, I hope, some attempt to repay the immense
debt that I owe to this board's posters, for the thoughts which
they throw out almost casually for my pleasure.
*********** I love these things.
Language is not the only way in which we express ourselves. How
many times have we heard the sentence: 'X% of communication is
non-verbal'? (usually with the X wildly varying, but usually well-above
50%). However, here on this board, in a very real sense, it is.
Body language is stripped away, as is tone of voice. It has an
enabling effect, as well as the much commented-on drawbacks. We
can't establish so easily when people are being playful, are genuinely
angry, or are intending generosity but actually portray cruellness
of some kind. But on the other hand, I suspect that the board
does allow people to express opinions more easily than everyday
life in other ways. As little as I wish to admit it, I suspect
subconsciously that my lack of knowldege over many people's gender,
age and location actually helps me in dealing with arguments head-on.
I don't spend time thinking that people's viewpoints are bound
to be different, so why bother. I also don't feel as intimidated
by people as I might do if I knew that they were 30 years older
than me, (which might just be true in some cases). Any subconscious
prejudices of vision are swept away too. In a sense, this is one
of the most pure forms of language communication you will find
anywhere. So how important is language to the way we think? Is
language in fact the only restriction on philosophical progress.
Are there no real Philosophical Problems? This was the question
posed in Cambridge on 25, October 1946.
My knowledge of Popper and Wittgenstein's philosophies stems entirely
from the book 'Wittgenstein's Poker', by Dave Edmonds and John
Eidinow. I don' claim in any way to be an expert on these philosophers,
just a keen reader, interested in linking their thoughts, (or
an 'explained to the layman' version of them) to my own experiences,
here particularly of language.
In the book, it is explained how Wittgenstein and Popper were
two of the greatest philosophical minds of the 20th century. And
how, to Popper, (the younger and less established of the two),
Wittgenstein's views were entirely useless. He set himself up
diametrically opposed to Wittgenstein's views, particularly on
just what it is possible to know.
On 10/25/1946 (I'm getting those American dates), Popper was a
guest speaker at the Moral Science Club, an institution led by
Wittgenstein, the pre-eminent philosopher at Cambridge. It is
the only time the two men met. Popper's paper addressed the question
'Are there Philosophical Problems?'. He put forward that they
were, and that the attitude of Wittgenstein, of saying the Problems
were only puzzles with language, was insufficient. There are problems
not created by language which need to be addressed. These included
inductions and ethics.
Wittgenstein was angered and appalled by this statement which
was obviously made to challenge his core assertions. These assertions
had made him the most famous philosopher in the world, and inspired
the Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle. With his trademark
nervous energy, he brandished a poker at Popper, telling him that
he was incorrect. Shortly afterwards Wittgenstein, riled, left
the meeting slamming the door behind him.
The crux of this story is that, at some point of the debate, Popper
was asked, (either by Wittgenstein or one of his Cambridge acolytes),
for an example of an empirical moral rule. Popper replied: 'It
is a moral rule never to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers'.
Argument rages as to whether, as Popper writes assuredly in his
autobiography, Popper said this to Wittgenstein, or whether he
merely offered it back to the room after Wittgenstein had left.
The real truth of this matter seems like it will never be known.
What consequences do these two appraisals have for our lives?
In Wittgenstein's view, all Philosophy is a mire of inter-tangled
definitions of words. Language creates the problems. There are
only puzzles Here at Voy, the questions of moral ambiguity are
only intriguin puzzles in language. The Logical Positivists, (whom
Wittgenstein inspired, but largely disagreed with), asserted that
a sentence is only meaningful if it is verifiable. Either it is
true by definition, [an intrinsic truth like: 'the moon is a lunar
object'- merely playing with language] or it is true if it can
be shown by experiment, [eggs have always smashed on concrete
floors]. All other statements are irrelevant amusements. 'There
is a God' is not intrinsically truw by definition, nor verifiable,
and is therefore not worth discussing as a serious truth.
This is a 'puzzling' dilemma for our little room. Are all our
little disagreements about things that don't really matter? Are
we searching without any chance of finding. Is the grey ground
not worth looking at. Or, as Wittgenstein put it, is 'the deep
insayable?' Are the puzzling, profound questions that we ask ultimately
without an answer in language. Are we just amusing ourselves,
but never learning about our ultimate situation here?
Popper dismissed this argument. There were real problems in the
real world. We need to know that totalitarianism is wrong. The
Logical Postivist argument was false anyway, in his opinion, as
to claim eggs break on concrete floors one would have to check
every egg on every concrete floor, an action both impossible and
severely damaging to us omelette-lovers.He said that something
can be shown to be false if there is one counterexample, an aspect
of philosophy which has been thoroughly applied to the maths syllabus
I now study, (between lengthy voy rambles, of course). Popper
inspired many people, including, oddly enough, Margaret Thatcher,
who cited him as her favourite philosopher. But Popper, ultimately,
saw the Philosophical Problems. He would perhaps have been interested
in, 'Should Buffy forgive Spike?': 'Was Giles right to kill Ben?',
and 'Did the Parking Ticket Lady deserved to have her wheel clamped'?
For him, ethics was part of philosophy, and a truth about how
we exist could grow out of the problems in the real world, outside
language.
********** Is this one strictly necessary? Probably not.
Carol Ann Duffy also likes to explore language. I make no excuse
for not censoring the above poem, as it would be a ridiculous
irony- censoring a poem about people scared of language. For the
women of this poem, language is, in a sense, there greatest problem.
There desire for a 'Litany', a use of language which somehow expresses
something holy and indescribable about their mundane life, is
a product of their deep fear of language. In a sense, language
is reality for them. It is as if saying 'cancer' instead of 'The
Big C' might somehow incur cancer on the speaker. Similarly for
's-e-x'. Mentioning it might lead innocent Tupperware sessions
to decay into drunken orgies. As we can see from Duffy's portrayla,
language shapes the women's existence. They are deeply afraid
of its power. The child with the temerity to utter the word 'Fuck',
even when, as it is repeated from the boy, it is entirely devoid
of any meaning, shows how some of the problems with their lives
stem from an inability to cope with language. No-one can spell
'leukaemia' , so somehow their experience
of it is resticted. But is it that there problems in life are
reflected in their language problems, or is it language itself
which is the problem? Here again, we have the Wittgenstein/Popper
dichotomy.
[Check out more Carol Ann Duffy at home.clara.net/stevebrown/html/carol_ann_duffy.htm,
where the poems from her collection 'Mean Time' are truly remarkable.]
************ Last one. I promise.
So how does this relate to Buffy. In Joss' opinion, we communicate
better without language. In 'Hush', everybody is emotionally honest,
without the tangles of language to impede them. With Wittgenstein's
tangle of language cleared away, they are free to understand problems
concisely. But surely this doesn't shelve everything? There are
still ways to behave with each other, ultimate questions, which
are still relevant despite the loss of words? Or are there.
Language is a powerful tool. Without language, we would not have
this discussion board. Language is still necessary for the exposition
scene in 'Hush', even if written rather than verbal. Language
allows Deb, Rahael, Arethusa, Briar Rose, Caroline and others
to make me attempt to understand- and it can make me cry. But
language also appears to restrict life. Language can be scary-
and our attempts to control it can impede understanding.
There is never anything said about language which is not said
in language- a paradox which hampers the whole argument. If Popper
and Wittgenstein, two great minds, thought so unalike, what hope
is there for us, in uncovering the great mysteries of philosophy?
Maybe not a lot. But maybe, ultimately, I don't care that much.
Through trying to find out, trying to understand, we form much
stronger links. Links of emotion, ratehr than merely hyper-script.
We make friends. We cry with grief, or lack of understanding,
or smile with pleasure at an argument well-made, or at a thought
or emotion shared. We are fellow strugglers in the journey of
life, he said, relapsing into platitudes.
I'm British- so clearly I love Winston Churchill.
Are we still 'Captains of our fate' and 'Masters of our souls'.
Yes. More so for understanding ourselves by reading from others.
What language unites, let not trolls put asunder.
TCH- feeling thoroughly exhausted and egotistically begging feedback.
[> Not directly related
to philosophy (to TCH, Rah, Deb, Tiresius, and others) --
KdS, 05:51:07 12/06/02 Fri
TCH put into words everything I wanted to say in the thread below
but didn't dare to. The amount of stuff that comes out on this
board shocks, and stuns me, and leaves me wondering if I have
a right to respond, if I even dare to... I feel for everyone who
posted personal experiences and I'm stunned that such a proportion
of people on this board have had such experiences. Makes me feel
how sheltered my own life has been, how pointless and self-indulgent
my own occasional periods of depression have been when I have
such a privileged life in so many ways.
And Deb, I reacted very badly to some of your posts yesterday
in the same way as Dan did, coming very much from a background
of total artistic freedom. I'm glad I didn't post now because
of the sheer number of people... I'd better fall back on my usual
liberal fudge about censorship being a bad thing but artists having
a responsibility to think about the consequences of their actions...
[> Philosophical progress.
-- Darby, 07:42:10 12/06/02 Fri
Before getting to the meat, I want to echo that the most satisfying
aspect of the Board experience, for me, is having this window
into other lives, for experiences I will never know any other
way but which touch me in their telling. I would like to remind
people, in terms of language, that the more personal the stories,
the more vulnerable the poster, and sometimes the more visceral
the response, but please keep in mind that we challenge you to
answer with passion and courtesy (I always find it ironic
that the poster best able to do this, Rahael, seems to have the
least trust in her ability to do it). A badly-chosen phrase can
have the impact of creating long dry spells of no personal stories
and the withdrawal of some of our favorite community members (and
the continued lurking of valuable but unknown members).
And I'd participate with personal stories, and do on occasion,
but unfortunately I'm deadly dull.
To the matter at hand - is it a uniquely Western trait that everything
must experience "progress" to have value? Do Eastern
philosophers bemoan a lack of development in their philosophical
systems? And how, exactly, does philosophy advance?
To me, philosophy is an investigation of the inner voices of individuals
and groups. What does it all mean? What should it mean?
Do I matter, and does it matter if maybe I don't? Is there truth
to be found and then analyzed further, or does the truth only
exist fleetingly, a reflection of the spirit of the person or
society, changing from generation to generation without any real
directionality?
As a biologist, I firmly believe that Human Nature is not changing
in any significant way - if philosophy is inextricably linked
to our inner natures, it shouldn't really progress. Society, as
has been debated here extensively, may be a different thing -
is it progress to move toward broad-spectrum individual rights
and empowerment, or do I only think so because that seems "better"
to me? This is an interesting question, and not only because the
Big Picture aspect glosses over my ignorance in actual philosophy.
- Darby, actually amazed that he could dip a foot into a philosophy
discussion here.
[> [> Re: Philosophical
progress. -- Rahael, 08:31:59 12/06/02 Fri
Firstly, TCH, what a wonderful post. Complex and thoughtful and
very intelligent! (Plus you know, you brought Wittgenstein into
it!)
Just reading it and starting the brain thinking again has been
a blissful release. Words suddenly bubbling up within me again.
Reminding me that though I can be mute, words and text, in all
their articifiality can provide infinite amounts of solace. (But
I want to check out my copy of Philosophical Investigations first
before a proper reply!!)
Darby - wow thank you. That means a lot. Though I sometimes feel
fragile, I always feel stronger than everyone else. I mistrust
the ability of my tongue to cut and slash, for the ability to
cast people into moods I know I can withstand, but am not sure
others could.
I always feel that empathy and kindness are the greatest gifts
we can offer to each other, but are often the things that are
in short supply. I want to use Caroline's wonderful phrase (it
has such Miltonic overtones!) - the architecture of pain. Our
architectures allow us to understand and empathise where experience
is lacking. We all know what it is to be terrified, to be lonely,
to be desolate, to walk in a bleak internal land. With this understanding,
the knowledge that we as individuals can make a huge difference
to each other with such a simple thing as recognition, compassion
and understanding -
The idea that the greatest comfort afforded to me comes from a
centuries dead white, aristocratic Anglican vicar -
It's what great art does. It makes us feel included. It recognises
our humanity, or we feel that it does, and that's the important
thing.
When George Herbert, in his desolation asks God to make him a
tree, so he may afford shelter to a nesting bird, and thus make
him 'just', he asks that he become such a work of art. Inclusive,
kind, compassionate and justified.
Thank you, TCH and Darby, for your kind words. For when our words
connect and are understood and acknowledged, there can be no platitudes
or naivety. Sometimes all we can do is search for words that are
'not untrue and not unkind'. But sometimes we can give words that
are both.
[> [> [> And thank
you -- Caroline, 22:01:55 12/06/02 Fri
for grokking what I said. You put it far more beautifully than
I ever could.
[> [> [> Re: Philosophical
progress. -- M, 23:15:25 12/07/02 Sat
"So soon as a field of inquiry yeilds knowledge susceptible
of exact formulation it is called science. Every science begins
as philosophy and ends in art."
Will Durant
[> [> 'I'd participate
with personal stories, and do on occasion, but unfortunately I'm
deadly dull.' -- Tchaikovsky, 11:52:54 12/06/02 Fri
That makes two of us then.
C'est la vie.
TCH
[> TCH, that was wonderfully
well-written! -- ponygirl, 09:06:28 12/06/02 Fri
[> [> Thank you --
TCH (hey! Everyone's finally using my acronym!), 10:46:17 12/06/02
Fri
[> [> I second that
-- slain, 18:02:30 12/06/02 Fri
I'm having flashbacks to some seminars on linguistics here which
I didn't understand at the time, so I don't think I can respond
in any coherent way, but I recall someone started an interesting
thread about language in BtVS not so long ago which might be worth
revisting in this light. Archives, anyone?
[> [> [> I think that
was -- Sophist, 20:21:09 12/06/02 Fri
**looks around furtively** (whispering) the meme thread(s). Don't
tell anyone I said so.
[> Re: Buffy's stake in
Wittgenstein's poker -- Sophie, 09:17:48 12/06/02 Fri
I, like many Americans, have lived a sheltered, middle-class life.
I lived (by choice) in a crime ridden inner-city neighborhood
for a couple of years (to see how tough I really was), traveled
to Europe and Mexico, and concluded that I had seen the world.
Rahael has reminded me of how wrong I am. My perspective is, unfortunately,
extremely limited by my only speaking English and living a sheltered
middle-class life in America - a country that has not seen a war
fought on its soil since the Civil War ended in 1865. (unless
one includes the attack at Pearl Harbor).
I appreciate the sheltered life that I have lived and how lucky
I am. The horrors, be them metaphors or not, shown on BtVS are
really fantasies and thoughts for me. I am not sure that I could
watch the show if this were not so. On 9/11, I was five blocks
from the WTC when the attacks occurred ñ the closest I
have ever been to true evil in my life. I, unlike nearly 3,000
unfortunate others, walked out with my life and no physical damage
to my body. What I saw, though, was truly horrible.
When I visited Europe, one of the things that struck me was the
difference in language. It was like somebody changed the operating
system in the people. This has contributed to my personal theory
that language forms our thoughts. I have started to force myself
to try and read books in French, to learn the words, and to learn
new ideas. This is a slow process. I read a little of Jacques
Derridaís philosophy (translated to English) when I was
an undergrad in college many years ago. He wrote about how language
informs our thoughts, but back then I didnít understand.
Now maybe I do ñ at least conceptually. Of course, the
different cultures that use these different languages inform the
development of the language as well. Translations of language
from one to another are thus doomed to be insufficient.
Derrida wrote a story(?) about how he wrote a journal on the back
of postcards and mailed them. Because postcards are not enclosed
in anything, everybody who gets hold of a postcard can read it.
The postman, the person who picks up a lost postcard in the street,
etc. Derridaís postcards all get lost, so all sorts of
people each get a part of the story, thus left to draw their own
conclusion. This board, sometimes reminds me of these postcards.
When someone posts a thought/thread/post, they risk it being misinterpreted
or some other life experiences being applied to it to derive the
meaning. It amazes me how we can work out these difficulties and
better learn to understand each other under such conditions, especially
considering how many of the posters here are writing in a foreign
(to them) language (English).
Sophie
[> [> Cart or horse?
-- Darby, 10:18:35 12/06/02 Fri
I sort of subscribe to the thought / language / culture symbiosis,
but like a good symbiosis, each probably influences the development
(geez, almost said evolution there!) of the other. How much does
a cultural persona influence the flow of the primary language,
and how much does language fit back into the culture itself, and
how much do both influence the thought flow in the individual
hive members? Like you, I think that somehow the couching of my
thoughts in a particular language influences the course of those
thoughts.
And for those who doubt that the inner monologue has a language,
I gotta tell you, as a profoundly visual thinker, mine does because
I can "see" most of the words as they go by. Makes me
a wicked good speller...
[> [> [> Ooops - this
was a response to Sophist... -- Darby, 10:20:18 12/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> Re:
Ooops - this was a response to Sophist... -- Sophie, 11:29:25
12/06/02 Fri
I agree with you, Darby.
I'm sure Sophist will show up sometime soon, though. I am amazed
how often he and I get confused. :)
Sophie
[> [> [> [> [>
By this point, I'm thoroughly confused and doubting my own
identity. -- Sophist, 12:22:39 12/06/02 Fri
Which is a metaphysical problem if ever there was one. Irony is
like that, I guess.
Having read Darby's post, I was sure it was really a response
to Sophie. Are you sure, Darby? And don't go solipsistic on me
now.....
I do have a solution, though. I think Sophie and I ought to adopt
each other's name as our evil alter egos. Then we can have a convenient
scapegoat for all occasions.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I 'm confused. All here are confused. My job is done...
-- Darby, 12:59:55 12/06/02 Fri
Y'know, sometimes my students don't think it's funny when they
start a sentence, "I'm confused..." and I quickly say,
"Then my job is done!" and turn away. I do turn back...eventually...
It was actually a reply to Sophie - I had misread which
post I was bringing up. That explains why it appeared where it
did.
But Sophist, now I'm forgetting your take on language and thought
...
Man, can you tell it's Friday afternoon?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Language and thought -- Sophist, 17:28:21
12/06/02 Fri
It wasn't my take so much as Pinker's. He says that language does
not affect thought; it's the other way around -- thought affects
language.
He's the expert, so I accept that view. I tend to think it's right
anyway.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Language and thought -- Sophie, 18:32:21
12/06/02 Fri
Pinker? Who? Might have to look into him.
Setting aside my acceptance of Sartrean beliefs and doctrines
wholesale just because Sartre said/wrote them, I started off life
thinking that thought informed language and it is only recently
that I have really changed my mind and think that language informs
thought. If you can't say it, then how can you think it? Grunt
grunt = I like cabbage? Ok, not making fun of you. In "1984",
Orwell describes how by deleting words from the vocabulary, the
prolitareites (Darby - spelling help needed!) can be prevented
from thinking things that might be against Big Brother's wishes.
Clearly, Orwell is proposing that language informs (or controls)
thought.
My theories loosely spring forth from there and combine with an
observation that books in English to a great degree are written
with the cultural understandings of Protestant beliefs, most notable
the "Protestant Work Ethic" (PWE). When I browse the
shelves at NYU's library, I can't help but notice that books in
French happily address issues such as torture and pity, while
the books in English only discuss Evil in terms of being against
God and thus wrong. It is hard to plant myself on either side
of the issue, but something is clearly at work here...
Sophie
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Language and thought -- Sophist,
18:52:42 12/06/02 Fri
Orwell was writing in 1948 and using the understanding of language/thought
predominant at that time. Since then, Chomsky radically changed
the way science understands language.
Basically, Chomsky says language is innate; all humans, after
all, can use it. Even deaf people -- they use sign language, but
it's still language. (Speech is not the same as language.)
Language is innate because our brains are programmed in advance
to learn it. This means that we have wiring that specifies the
basic grammar of language. Chomsky calls this "universal
grammar". Don't think of this as quite the same as English
grammar. Think of it as a set of underlying rules that all grammars
-- English, Chinese, Bantu, etc. -- must follow.
At bottom, then, language works because thoughts are represented
in an internal brain language and then translated into the specific
human language we speak. This makes the human language secondary.
We can think any thought our brains are capable of and then we
express it in our "native" language.
If this were not true, then some languages would be "better"
than others. They would have, say, more complex grammar. This,
however, is untrue. All languages are equally complex; English
is not "better" than Bantu. It is true that some thoughts
might be expressed more felicitously in some languages than in
others, but any thought can be expressed in any language. Again,
if this were not true, non-English speakers might be unable to
learn concepts first developed by English speakers. This is not
the case -- so-called "primitive" people can learn any
concept. Conversely, we can learn any concept first articulated
in another language.
The differences you mention between French and English are better
explained as differences of culture rather than language.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Language and thought
-- Sophie, 19:25:38 12/06/02 Fri
Just for fun, just for a minute, let's play with an idea.
Perhaps some languages are better than others. The Eskimo language
has multiple words for snow, whereas English has only one. I can
describe types of snow, but I can't efficiently speak them. I
have to waste time describing snow with English words (adjectives).
The Eskimo utters his type of snow with one word. Other languages
have, uh, fallen behind the times. I would hate to have to describe
my computer's parts using Latin. That doesn't make any language
"better", but rather, more useful/efficient at different
things.
Schopenhauer (I think it was him) wrote about how one cannot speak
without implying/using the concept of time. To say something about
an object required an implicit time frame. For example, "this
chair is comfortable" - I imply a specific chair (the one
I am sitting in), at a specific place (my bedroom), and at a specific
time (now).
You're most certainly right, if you don't teach a baby a language
while s/he is growing up, it will probably make one up - but it
will probably be limited and less robust and the baby will probably
never achieve any great thinking. So: culture + the specific capacities
of the language taught/learned + brain wiring capable of learning
language = thoughts. And speech and writing are used to share
these thoughts.
Anyways, for 30 years I lived using your theory, so now I will
live 30 years using the opposite theory. Maybe we will end up
at the same place, maybe we won't. :)
Sophie
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Language and thought
-- Sophist, 20:18:45 12/06/02 Fri
One factual point: Eskimo has no more words for snow than English
does. The opposite claim was one of those condescending myths
about "primitive" people so common in the bad ol' days.
We'd never do that now of course...
Think of language this way: in order to create something new,
we must be able to think of it in some way without using an existing
word for it. If this weren't the case, we could only think of
those things for which a word already existed. This is not true
-- we invent radios, then we think up the word, not the other
way around.
If you are interested in Pinker's books, he has written 4: The
Language Instinct, Words and Rules, How the Mind Works, and The
Blank Slate. The first 2 are excellent; don't waste your money
on the last two.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sneaking in to be
horribly pedantic -- ponygirl, 07:51:39 12/09/02 Mon
Just to say that the correct term is Inuit, not Eskimo. Eskimo
is actually a Cree word meaning "eaters of raw fish."
While Eskimo is a pretty accepted name, the Inuit obviously prefer
their own name for themselves. The power of language...
Slinking off now...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for
the tip! -- Sophie, 08:14:35 12/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> are you sure you want to do that? -- Sophie, 13:19:07
12/06/02 Fri
I think I push more buttons than you -
I thought the post read more like a response to me, too. Chicken
and egg debate anyway.
Sophie
[> [> thought w/out language
-- anom, 22:43:00 12/08/02 Sun
"When I visited Europe, one of the things that struck me
was the difference in language. It was like somebody changed the
operating system in the people. This has contributed to my personal
theory that language forms our thoughts."
Love that part about the operating system! As for language forming
thoughts, the concept that you can't have thought w/out language
has been challenged recently. An amazing living example is Dr.
Temple Grandin, who is a high-functioning autistic person (very--Ph.D.
high enough for ya?). She describes her thought process as "thinking
in pictures" (I'm trying to remember if that's one of her
book titles--I know one is An Anthropologist on Mars, which
describes how she feels trying to figure out human society). Grandin
says she doesn't think in words; the thoughts come as images,
& she has learned the words other people use for those images
& applies them after the fact. For her, the thoughts definitely
come before the language.
Certainly, Grandin's case isn't the "normal" human experience
of thought, but it does show that it's possible to think without
language. Maybe we all do it to some extent. Of course, language
is still necessary to communicate our thoughts to others, whether
it's involved in forming those thoughts or not.
[> [> [> Re: thought
w/out language -- Sophie, 06:36:40 12/09/02 Mon
Yes, I know - I can see a scenic landscape and paint the thing
to express my "thoughts" about it without any language.
I guess I over stated my case - I'm trying to address abstract,
philosphical thinking - all those non-tangible thinky thoughts
- probably somewhat provoked by my being a researcher.
Honestly, I think you need a little of both language and thought.
I expect to come explore and come full circle some day, at which
time, I will resume playing my oboe. (I have this niggling desire
to become one of those subway musicians - gah!!)
S
[> [> [> "An
Anthropologist on Mars" is by Oliver Sacks -- Sara feeling
like a fountain of information, 13:21:27 12/09/02 Mon
and is a great book. Temple Grandin is the subject of the title
essay and is fascinating. Temple Grandin has two books, one called
"Emergence: Labeled Autistic" and the other is called
"Thinking in Pictures." I'm on Amazon.com right now
trying to decide whether to take the plunge and purchase them
both...I could buy them with Sarah Vowell's book "The Partly
Cloudy Patriot" with its chapter on what the Gore campaign
should have learned from Buffy the Vampire Slayer and not pay
shipping, oh dear... I really can relate to a sweatshirt I saw
yesterday - "So many books, so little time"
- Sara, whose sweatshirt should probably read "So many books,
so many line items on my Visa bill" (if you listen really
hard you can hear Darby whimpering in the background)
[> [> [> [> oops!
that's what i get for thinking i know stuff & posting w/out checking...
-- anom, 18:49:56 12/09/02 Mon
...which I don't have time for anyway. Thanks for setting me (& anyone
I misled) straight. The book I meant to refer to was Thinking
in Pictures.
[> I have, I suppose, an
extreme view -- Sophist, 09:56:09 12/06/02 Fri
of philosophy, one that either suits my posting name or is antithetical
to it, depending on your view of the real Sophists.
I see metaphysics as a failed project. If Wittgenstein wasn't
entirely right, he was essentially so. Metaphysics never could
provide answers to the questions it was asking, and many of the
questions themselves were meaningless. I see no reason to pursue
that project when science is available to ask better questions
and provide better answers.
Ethics is a different story, and I would agree with Popper up
to a point. Science can't yet provide answers to ethical problems,
and may never be able to. Even here, I'm skeptical of all-encompassing
systems that philosophers seem drawn to; I tend to believe that
each problem must be addressed on its own. JMHO.
[> Re: Buffy's stake in
Wittgenstein's poker -- Pilgrim, 12:22:39 12/06/02 Fri
Cool post, TCH.
I don't know, "having language" and "being human"
may be inseparable. I saw a documentary some time ago about a
wild child found in France (I think) who had no speech and who
the psychologists and sociologists of that era (I think it was
turn of the century?) concluded was "uncivilized" and
uncivilizable. If language and humanity are inseparable concepts,
then problems of humanity posed by metaphysics--like who am I,
what exists after the end and before the beginning of life, what
is the meaning of life--those problems perhaps necessarily are
grounded in language, our very ability to think about these concepts
arises out of our speech. In the beginning was the Word. And even
in "Hush," there was plenty of language--some of the
humor of the episode came out of the characters' ingenious alternatives
for the spoken voice in communicating with each other. Time and
again in the series, we see imtimacy grow when characters talk
to each other (I think Spike and Buffy in the basement in Never
Leave Me is an example) and distance and weakness grow when the
characters don't talk to each other.
I think that, apart from whether philsophy is ultimately "merely"
a tangle of words, beliefs do matter. Beliefs have consequences--some
Americans in 1861 believed that slavery was an evil and should
be abolished, and others believed the opposite, and the consequence
of those beliefs was bloodshed, horror, and some measure of civil
freedom for former slaves. We form at least contingent beliefs,
don't we, in order to decide how to act in any given situation.
And contributing to society's understanding how and why we hold
these beliefs and what the beliefs really are seems to me at least
part of what the philosopher does (as well as the novelist and
the TV series writer). Even scientists hold beliefs that sway
their science, don't they--that inform what questions they ask,
if not what the contingent answers are.
Buffy may not believe in "God" (she says the evidence
is inconclusive) but she does have beliefs she acts on: that there
is evil in her world and some beings are evil (not just that some
beings behave badly), that it is right and good for her to dispose
of evil beings, that humans have souls (and therefore are alive
and potentially good) but vampires don't (and therefore are dead
and not potentially good, no matter what good acts they perform),
that life is an ultimate good. These strike me as metaphysical
beliefs and not scientific conclusions, and they are important
in that they motivate conduct. And whether or not these beliefs
are at bottom issues of language definition (what is a human,
what is a vampire, what is life, what is death) or more foundational
philosophical problems strikes me as unimportant. But then, I'm
not a philosopher, a moralist, or a scientist, but only a lapsed
lawyer, so what do I know? :o)
[> [> Thanks, Pilgrim!
(oops, sorry about the pun!) ... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 14:37:42
12/06/02 Fri
The last paragraph in your post captured with perfect succintness
the qualities I love most about Buffy; that she strives to know
the good and do it even though the existence of God is still an
unresolved question. It is this existential integrity, if you
will, that inspires me, because I find myself in the same situation.
Although I suspect that most, if not all, metaphysical speculation
is pointless and perhaps literally meaningless, I keep coming
back to those questions because, when I consider Dostoevski's
pronouncement "If God is dead, then all is lawful.",
I am filled with a peculiar, pronounced dread. At any rate, this
"silly little tv show" seems to help me in my wrestling
match with these problems.
[> [> The lapsed lawyer
picks up a spare! -- Tchaikovsky, 15:04:27 12/06/02 Fri
Oddly enough, I don't think that anyone in this thread, (except
perhaps Rahael), has owned up to knowing anything about philosophy.
I was just summarising an interesting book I'd read. Darby claimed
to be surprised about being able to dip his toe in a philosophical
arugment. And so on and so forth.
But who cares? Anyone can be a philosopher. It just comes from
'philos' love- 'sophy'- wisdom- or something similar which some
philologist and philosopher will pick up for me. I think we all
love wisdom here.
And your points are well-made and thought-provoking. It begs the
question: did we become conscious before speech? Did we devise
'ultimate questions' before speech? I am unqualified to know whether
this is an aspect of evolution which has been explored, or even
if it's possible. But in a sense, maybe it holds a key to knowing
whether language precedes problems, or problems precede language.
Here we're running gun-barrel parallel to the dilemma about existence
and essence that Sartre had such strong views on. Existentialists
were, (as one can guess from the name), of the view that existence
came first. All the fascinating thoughts and theories that we've
had on existentialism here stem from that tenet.
And yes, even if the questions are 'meaningless' in some rational
way, it doesn't mean we shouldn't explore. If someone enlightened
with power had been on the South's Side in 1861, a similar conclusion
may have been reached without bloodshed. It doesn't matter that
we don't have all the answers. It doesn't even matter if there
aren't any. It's the trying that counts.
TCH
[> [> [> God, Buffy,
and Happiness -- Wisewoman, 17:49:53 12/06/02 Fri
This discussion has reminded me of a book I read a while back
by any actual (unemployed) philosopher: Better Living: In Pursuit
of Happiness from Plato to Prozac, by Mark Kingwell.
Kingwell uses everything from the Canadian National Exhibition
to Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy to investigate
what makes people truly happy.
His conclusion? Philosophy! Whether we call it that or not, what
people need to be happy is exactly what we're doing here--asking
the big questions, postulating the big answers, and discussing
everything in between. If the objective is happiness, it isn't
always necessary to find the truth, or to prove you're right;
what is necessary is to engage in the discussion.
Apparently the unexamined life really isn't worth living...
;o)
[> [> [> [> Re:
Happiness and Virtue :: Religion and Philosophy -- frisby
(the platonic nietzschean), 20:24:09 12/06/02 Fri
According to Plato, the achievement of the good we call "happiness"
requires the four goods of the body: strength, beauty (or nobility),
wealth, and health. Happiness is secondary though to possessing
the higher good we call "virtue" which requires the
four goods of the soul: that one be moderate, courageous, wise,
and just. "Faithfulness" (sometimes translated as loyalty)
at its highest combines that achievement with that possession.
As for philosophy though (according to the creator of Koyaanisqatsi),
the unexamined life is merely religion.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Happiness and Virtue :: Religion and Philosophy --
Wisewoman, 22:09:36 12/06/02 Fri
Ever read Ken Wilber on the difference between translative and
transformative religion? Fascinating stuff. I'll see if I can
find the link tomorrow, when I'm not so tired. Translative religions
do, indeed, support the unexamined lifestyle.
(I loved Baraka, actually, but I don't remember anyone saying
anything in that, LOL!)
:o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: How it was said. -- frisby, 04:42:17 12/07/02
Sat
It was said on the commentary on the dvd. I don't know the difference
between translative and transformative religion (maybe the former
translate the authoritative opinions of the rulers into beliefs
for the ruled, while the latter transforms those very authoritative
opinions?). A link will be appreciated. I'll search Ken Wilber.
Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Here's the link... -- Wisewoman, 08:51:34
12/07/02 Sat
Sorry, just the cut-and-paste version, as I'm on my way out. I'll
check back in later...
http://www.wie.org/j20/wilberintro.asp
Cheers,
dub ;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Here's the link...(thanks!) -- frisby,
12:27:31 12/07/02 Sat
Thanks Wisewoman. I got the link. Looks like an interesting article,
and a very interesting journal. I think I ran across it once before
somehow or other, but I don't know it well. Anyway, I'm about
to read but thought I'd post a short something first. For a baseline,
I'll mention that section #61 (on the uses of religion) and #62
(on the dangers of religion) of Nietzsche's _Beyond Good and Evil_
are my authorities in this regard of the essence of religion and
religious beings (chapter 3).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I'll re-read, thanks for the advance
notice! -- dub ;o), 09:49:36 12/08/02 Sun
If this discussion goes anywhere, we'll have to start another
thread, or possibly tack it on to Haecceity's thread at the top.
;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Response on Wilber's translative vs tranformative
-- frisby, 16:50:49 12/08/02 Sun
Thanks again Wiseoman. I printed Wilber's article off the URL
you provided and read it carefully. His distinction between the
two functions of religion (translative and transformative) is
indeed enlightening and fruitful, and comes close to the way I
understand the difference between religion itself and philosophy.
One of the many ways he explains the translative function is that
it creates meaning (out of fortune) for the self, and also provides
the social glue which binds the members of society together. One
of the many ways he explains the transformative function