January 2002 posts
Very witty fan review of Gone...hysterical in fact. -- Gwyn, 00:53:14 01/11/02 Fri
Thought some here might be interested in this fan review of Gone... I nearly fell of my chair laughing...very witty review..it is up at the Buffy Cross and Stake...
http://www.voy.com/13746/38627.html
[> Yes, it's very good....link inside -- Rufus, 02:21:08 01/11/02 Fri
Cross & Stake
[> Teeny-tiny nitpick... -- Marie, 07:15:33 01/11/02 Fri
...and this is not to take away from the wit of this review (I thought it was brilliant, and I've bookmarked his/her site, so I can read his/her other stuff).
Buffy decides she needs a walk to clear her head and bails, sure that Xander and Anya will find out what's happened. Buffy shirking responsibility; who'd uh thunk it.
Buffy has always left the research up to the other members of the Gang. She's always freely admitted to not being 'research girl', so I don't think it's out of character for her to leave them to it now. That's not shirking responsibility, is it?
M
[> [> Yes, it is irresponsible (Compare to Smashed Research) -- Spike Lover, 17:22:46 01/12/02 Sat
[> heh -- Apophis, 11:58:20 01/11/02 Fri
"Krypton Kreek"... heh.
[> Yay, very funny! -- Whisper2AScream, 12:03:48 01/11/02 Fri
Likewise loved it. Hehehehe! And the S/B, whoo, getting warm in here.... I was thinking of Willow and Xander having a Mulder and Scully moment with their investigating into the invisibility phenomenon, and then Buff's makes the Muldering comment. Heh.
[> Ya know, I get annoyed when someone writes longer, funnier posts than me... -- OnM, 21:09:46 01/11/02 Fri
( Well, not really. But I so seldom bitch I just thought I would. )
Who is this person, and how can we make them write for us?
Brings me back to my suggestion of some months ago when I suggested that Liq consider collecting a number of good ep reviews from all over Buffyland and give them a centralized home at TES.
Still a good idea, methinks.
:)
Archives question -- Emcee003, 02:54:33 01/11/02 Fri
I was wondering if there's going to be an update to the archive to include Oct 2001 so I can read the posts that where made at the time of the of airing of the s6 eps. state side?
[> Nag, nag, nag -- d'Herblay, 06:42:26 01/11/02 Fri
Yes.
Eventually.
Get off of my back, would ya?
[> [> Re: Nag, nag, nag -- Masq, 09:00:45 01/11/02 Fri
D'Herb, you don't have to do it. : )
If you want to hand it back to me, I can get to it in February.
[> [> [> Kids! Do not make me have to stop this car -- WebGoddess, 10:14:10 01/11/02 Fri
So this topic got dH posting? sheesh :)
Health Advisory -- Shul, 03:57:48 01/11/02 Fri
Look at your clock now
If you have to get up and goto work in less then 3 hours it means you really need to turn off your computer.
Its for your own good.
=)
P.S. its 356 here
[> Is that Celsius or Fahrenheit? (NT) -- Darby, 05:14:32 01/11/02 Fri
[> might be a door number... -- Nevermore, 05:53:40 01/11/02 Fri
Buffy and Spike--Is she strong enough? -- luminesce, 07:21:23 01/11/02 Fri
Here's what I've been wondering about the Buffy/Spike relationship. (Aside from when and where I can find some nekkid Spike shots for my wallpaper).
Buffy's relationship with Angel tanked because (as a result of the curse) Angel had a "weakness" that prevented him from having a complete relationship with Buffy. Buffy's relationship with Riley tanked because Riley (as a result of being a weenie who got all torqued about having a girlfriend who could beat him up) had a weakness that prevented him from having a complete relationship with Buffy.
Angel could handle the Slayer aspect of Buffy, but couldn't meet her sexual desires. Riley could meet her sexual desires (though I still insist there was absolutely zero chemistry between the actors), but couldn't cope with the Slayer aspect.
And now there's Spike. Clearly, Spike does just fine in meeting Buffy's sexual desires. They seem, sexually, more attuned to one another than any other Buffy/whoever pairing we've seen. Buffy even seems to begin to understand and enjoy the way Spike likes to play with pain/violence and sex. I don't think there's any argument that they're a great match in bed.
And Spike has always been--even when he was bad, naughty, evil Spike--someone who has respected and admired the powers of a Slayer. (True, in pre-chip days he expressed that by trying to kill them...but he's a vampire, what do you want?). His post-chip time has shown him to us as a valuable asset in a fight, in research, and in an advice-giving position to Buffy. He's a hell of a fighter. He's strong enough to fight with her and against her on equal terms with her (which seems vital to me) And he's willing to sacrifice himself to help her and those she loves. Let us not forget that beating he took from Glory. Ever. *But* he's not at all insecure, so far as I've seen, about her incredible strength. He relishes it and respects it.
He's also becoming strong emotionally. As someone put it a little further down the list, he's no longer willing to be Buffy's bitch. He's insisting that the "invisible" relationship they've had is demeaning and inadequate. And he's right. And he's not afraid to call her on that. He's challenged her, and she's going to have to deal with that challenge.
I know how I hope it will turn out. I have no idea how it will actually turn out.
So it strikes me, after all this prefacing I've done, that the real question is no longer "Is Spike good enough for Buffy, or is he just an evil Creature of the Night with spectacular muscle definition?" The question is about Buffy now. To misquote an annoying Sheryl Crow lyric, the question has become, to my mind "Is she strong enough to be his woman?"
Can she deal with the totality of Spike--the good, the bad, the ugly, the dismay of friends and family. Can she see that he offers something no other man has offered her?
Is Buffy ready to date an adult?
[> Re: Buffy and Spike--Is she strong enough? -- manwitch, 09:16:42 01/11/02 Fri
Exactly.
I don't know that it is even important that she actually date him or that they actually have a long relationship. I think what matters is that she "ACCEPT" that Spike is worthy of it. She, thusfar, does not want to go there.
[> Is Buffy ready to date as an adult? -- Brian, 10:58:29 01/11/02 Fri
[> The beginning of your post reminded me of Goldilocks. Too cold, too hot, just right! *g* -- Deeva, 22:37:42 01/11/02 Fri
[> Is she strong enough? -- Spike Lover, 16:45:23 01/12/02 Sat
You have hit the nail on the head. Another reason why B/A did not have a chance is because Joyce went to Angel and asked him to leave Buffy. (How I hated that Bitch.) It was so none of her business (in certain aspects.) The reason she gave was that she wanted Buffy to have a normal life and Angel was not that. This made me even angrier at Joyce because in saying this she was denying (again) the specialness of Buffy, and the fact that she would never truly have a normal life. And then she was denying the biggest thing which was that: It is Buffy's life, to begin with.
I have to believe that if J was still alive, (so glad the Bitch is dead), she would not support a S/B pairing for the same reasons above, no matter what Buff's needs are or how good Spike is for her.
So, your question is right on. Is Buffy strong enough to fight against those (very influential) "friends/family" who will not support her relationship with Spike? If those friends/family convinced Spike to "let her go if you truly love her", would she be strong enough to fight him and make him stay? This is one of the BIGGEST adult hurdles Buffy faces.
General trickster response -- Mark Gelineau, 08:07:21 01/11/02 Fri
First off, thanks for all the great posts. This was exactly the type of conversation I was hoping would come from this idea. A couple of things i would like to respond to. First off Willow as trickster: I think if you look at this season, you can definitely see Willow as a trickster. That is a great observation and totally slipped past my radar till you pointed it out.
Spike as more Raven than Coyote: I think this is a perfect description of Spike. I spent some time studying folklore with a couple of tribes in the pacific northwest and heard a great deal of Raven stories. Spike is a great Raven style trickster.
Spike as Tarot fool: I love the idea of exploring the Buffy characters as Tarot figures, especially with the cute little tarot set up the UPN web site has on it. It's been a long time since i looked into Tarot sybolism, but i would read the heck out of it if someone posted.
Thanks again.
[> Long Post of Tarot descriptions -- fresne, 14:36:39 01/11/02 Fri
Here's what I have on file from when I made my Costuming Tarot. Anyone thinking of making a tarot deck, be warned. Gosh there are a lot of cards.
Although, of course, one might dig and dig for further meanings.
Categories of info
Major
Number
Traditional Name
common symbols
Meaning
Major
0
Fool
Little white dog, travel sack
Innocence , unrealized potential
Major
XIV
Temperance
person pouring water from cup to cup
Moderation, blending of opposites.
Major
XIX
The Sun
child on horse, sun in background
Success, optimism, bright outlook. Can also mean material happiness or a successful marriage, or birth of a brilliant child.
Major
XV
The Devil
Bound to a particular idea, obsession, manipulation of others.
Major
XVI
The Tower
People falling from, crown tossing, fire
Sudden and drastic changes in one's life. Disruptions leading to personal transformation
Major
XVII
The Star
female figure with pouring water
Inspiration, understanding, hope,.courage.
Major
XVIII
The Moon
moon raining down chaos
Imagination, intuition, dreams. Uncovering what is in the unconscious.
Major
XX
Judgement
Gabriel blowing horn
Awakening, often of a spiritual nature. Change of position in life or outlook.
Major
XXI
The World
Circle, some in middle, sides four saints, heads man eagle, bull, lion
Success in undertakings, matter of concern is universal.
Minor
C1
Cups
Beginnings, emotional awareness is headed your way
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c10
Cups
Completion, end of cycle, joy, happiness, contentment, the family, an idealized view
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c2
Cups
Balance, choices, duality, two forces drawn together, getting ready to share emotionally
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c3
Cups
Growth or expression, being with others in a non task oriented way
Emotions, love, beauty, focus on the group
Minor
c4
Cups
Containment no outlet, periods of self absorption, so self absorbed miss cup being offered
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c5
Cups
Minor conflict, uncertainties, loss and grief
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c6
Cups
Formation of certainties, random acts of kindness, senseless acts of beauty
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c7
Cups
Achievement, abilities developed, laziness, chaos
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c8
Cups
Movement towards goal, moment we realize the past is gone
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Minor
c9
Cups
Culmination, reckoning, wish card, a sense of satisfaction in all that you have
Emotions, love, beauty, water
Major
I
The Magician
scroll, eternity symbol
Mastery, self-confidence
Major
II
The High Priestess
moon symbols, scrolls
Mysteries, hidden meanings
Major
III
The Empress
Aphrodite symbol
Fertility, creativity
Major
IV
The Emperor
World and staff
Authority, leadership
Major
IX
The Hermit
lantern
Spiritual guidance, choosing a solitary path, finding a teacher
Minor
King
Wands
An inventive Entrepreneur. Analyzes and creates plans, is non-conformist and innovative. Believes in progress. Sensitive to possibilities. Always on the lookout for new projects. Competent and competitive. Good at one-upsmanship. Best at improvisation rather than preparation. Must feel challenged. Wants to understand rather than judge.
Minor
King
Swords
A fact-minded Administrator and Organizer. Very responsible. A pillar of strength. Organizes orderly procedures. Details rules and regulations. Evaluates others. Judges how a person is doing in terms of standard operating procedures. Abrupt. Does not shirk from duty. Can make sacrifices. Jumps to conclusions. Follow routines. Neat and orderly.
Man of mature nature. Medium skin, medium hair
Minor
King
Pentacles
A resourceful Producer and Promotor. Makes the most of every moment. A diplomat, negotiator, and conciliator. Sophisticated, suave, urbane, and smooth, with a hearty appetite for the good things of life. Master manipulator of the material environment, and a ruthless pragmatist who works close to the edge of disaster, yet always saves the day. Sometimes sees people as possessions or negotiable commodities. Everything is buy and sell.
Man of mature nature. Dark or olive skin, dark hair
Minor
King
Cups
Everyone's Friend. A harmonizer and pleaser, attending to the needs of others. A good host or hostess, but needs to be appreciated. Comfortable with rules and regulations, duty and service, routine and schedules. Gifted at sales through warm personality. Sympathetic. Emotionally expressive. Easily depressed, takes the blame, becomes melancoly and nostalgic. Dependent on others to feel good.
Man of mature nature. Fair skin, light hair
Minor
Knight
Wands
An Enthusiastic Planner of Change who sees life as an exciting drama. Authentic and spontaneous. Hypersensitive and hyperalert. Creative but without much follow-through. Fiercely independent. Fascinated most by what might be. Impatient. Strong sense of the motivations of others.
Young person (traditionally described as male) not a child, not yet mature. Medium skin, medium hair
Minor
Knight
Swords
A Field Marshall or Commandant. Needs to lead and give structure. Efficient, goal serving, empirical thinking. Likes responsibility, and determining policy and goals. Good long range vision and sense of direction. Plans in advance. Engineers operations. Strong will.
Minor
Knight
Pentacles
A Conservator who want to be of service to those in need. Manages facts and details. Values work, traditions and conservation of resources. Completes tasks, accomplishes duties, and follows procedures. Practical and down-to-earth. Frequently overworked and taken for granted.
Young person (traditionally described as male) not a child, not yet mature. Dark or olive skin, dark hair
Minor
Knight
Cups
A Questor. Calm, pleasant, reticient, shy. Highly idealistic. Cares deeply about a few people of a cause. The King's Champion, Defender of the Faith, Guardian of the Castle, Sir Galahad or Joan of Arc. Has in inner tragic motif and a gift for interpreting symbols. Lyrical rather than logical. Makes errors of fact but seldom of values.
Young person (traditionally described as male) not a child, not yet mature. Fair skin, light hair
Minor
p1
Pentacles, coins, disks
Beginnings, spirit of productivity headed your way, juggling while dancing, limitless productivity
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p10
Pentacles, coins, disks
Completion, end of cycle, afluence, permanence, convention
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p2
Pentacles, coins, disks
Balance, choices, duality, juggling and dancing at the same time, lots of energy
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p3
Pentacles, coins, disks
Growth or expression, getting the job done in a group, however of the three, one figure turns away
Material wealth, money, practicality, focus on the group
Minor
p4
Pentacles, coins, disks
Containment no outlet, desire for control
Material wealth, money, practicality, order and regularity
Minor
p5
Pentacles, coins, disks
Minor conflict, uncertainties, a lack of the basic necessities of life, lack of acceptance by others
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p6
Pentacles, coins, disks
Formation of certainties, represents the extremes of having and not having
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p7
Pentacles, coins, disks
Achievement, abilities developed, reflection on the fruits of your labors
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p8
Pentacles, coins, disks
Movement towards goal, bucklind down to some hard work, indicates show restraint and self control
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
p9
Pentacles, coins, disks
Culmination, reckoning, coins towards the ground, refinement, beauty
Material wealth, money, practicality, earth
Minor
Page
Wands
A Free Spirit. People-oriented innovative catalyst for positive change. Enjoys contributing to the well-being of others. Visionary, creative, poetic. Volatile emotions, easily elated or depressed. Can be meditative or fanatical. Masters of metaphor.
Minor
Page
Swords
A tool artisan. Artful action as an end in itself. Egalitarian, insubordinate, impulsive, recalcitrant. Fearlessly thrives on excitement. Pits themselves against chance, odds, or fate. Must use and manipulate tools. Seizes the moment and exploits resources. Artistic espionage using rapier-like tactics.
Young person (male or female) Medium skin, medium hair
Minor
Page
Pentacles
Young person (male or female) Dark or olive skin, dark hair
An entertainer who likes to make work fun. Warm, optimistic, social, charming, clever. Impulsive and generous. Avoids troubles by indicating compliance then going their own way. Hail fellow well met. With good common sense, relies on experience and personal impressions to make decisions. Gathers accurate date through continuous observation. Adept at selling tangibles.
Minor
Page
Cups
A Lover. An imaginative harmonizer and smooth-talking persuader. Charistmatic, cooperative, caring, concerned. Nurtures and supports others. Idealizes personal relationships. Empathetic and understanding of emotions and motivations.
Young person (male or female) Fair skin, light hair
Minor
Queen
Wands
A self-confident builder of systems and applier of theoretical models. Innovator of ideas, focuses on possibilities, and long term consequences. Decisive pragmatist who sees reality as arbitrary and made up - malleable. Brainstormer. Competent high achiever who demands perfection from self and others.
Woman of mature nature Ruddy skin, fair or reddish hair
Major
Queen
Swords
An Architect of Ideas. Very aware of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Great concentration. Logical and coherent. Obsessed with analysis. Looks for natural laws and proof. Demands precision in thought and language. Arrogant, but inquisitive. A problem-solver. Strong principles but insensitive to the feelings of others.
Woman of mature nature Medium skin, medium hair
Minor
Queen
Pentacles
A practical Guardian of time-honored institutions. A dependable provider, organizer, or supervisor. Conserves resources. Doesn't take chances. Is reliable, stable, patient, dedicated and solvent. A pillar of strength: loyal and faitful. Duty-bound. Is often a rescuer and reformer.
Woman of mature nature Dark or olive skin, dark hair
Minor
Queen
Cups
An Epicurean Artist. Lives as gracefully as possible in the here and now. Submerges self in actions and art forms, while being socially reticent and silent. Expresses unconditional kindness, extrememly sympathetic, and sensitive to the feelings and pain of others. Others tend to project their own hidden traits onto him or her.
Woman of mature nature Fair skin, light hair
Minor
s1
Swords
Beginnings, a seed has been planted
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s10
Swords
Completion, end of cycle, bottoming out
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s2
Swords
Balance, choices, duality, blindfolding yourself, refusing to admit, keeping emotions under control,
Intellect, courage, aggression, can be blocking off of experience, holding back
Minor
s3
Swords
Growth or expression, nasty curveballs life throws you
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s4
Swords
Containment no outlet, dead knight on bier, contemplation, inward focus
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s5
Swords
Minor conflict, uncertainties, self interest, and mistaken beliefs on it
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s6
Swords
Formation of certainties, period of mild depression., Travelers in a boat, one rowing, the other shrouded
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s7
Swords
Achievement, abilities developed, lone wolfing it.
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s8
Swords
Movement towards goal, lack of freedom and choice
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Minor
s9
Swords
Culmination, reckoning, pain striking at 3: in the morn, figure sitting up in bed in grief
Intellect, courage, aggression, air
Major
V
The Hierophant
Religious leader in formal church setting
Dogma, bonded to conventions of society
Major
VI
The Lovers
two people and an angel blessing them
Love, choices influenced by love
Major
VII
The Chariot
Chariot pulled by two sphinxes
Success, conquest, achievement.(May indicate travel over land.)
Major
VIII
Strength
woman wrestling lion, eternity symbol
Strength of character, bravery facing incredible odds, resolve
Minor
w1
Wands, Rods, Staves
Beginnings, creativity
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w10
Wands, Rods, Staves
Completion, end of cycle, carrying a heavy burden
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w2
Wands, Rods, Staves
Balance, choices, duality, personal power, daring creativity, power
Energy, growth, enterprise, expanding horizons
Minor
w3
Wands, Rods, Staves
Growth or expression, seeking the unknown, the long view
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w4
Wands, Rods, Staves
Happy dance card, excitement energy
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w5
Wands, Rods, Staves
Minor conflict, uncertainties, competition, having a rough day
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w6
Wands, Rods, Staves
Formation of certainties, feelings of triumph
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w7
Wands, Rods, Staves
Achievement, abilities developed, taking a stand, strong convictions
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w8
Wands, Rods, Staves
Movement towards goal, now is the time to move, acceleration, movement, progress
Energy, growth, enterprise, fire
Minor
w9
Wands, Rods, Staves
Culmination, reckoning, the determination and stamina to keep going Energy,
growth, enterprise, fire
Major
X
Wheel of Fortune
Circle no people
Completion of a cycle, luck, easy come-easy go.
Major
XI
Justice
woman with sword and scales
Fair conclusion of matter, successful legal dealings
Major
XII
The Hanged Man
upside down guy
Pausing to contemplate or meditate, acceptance of one's situation, sacrifice for a higher good
Major
XIII
Death
guy on horse with flag
Rebirth, transformation, matter concluded that teaches a lesson.
[> [> Good godz, fresne! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:11:36 01/11/02 Fri
Don't tell me you typed all that in, yourself. Sheesh!
Anyway, to elaborate on the Fool, the basis, end, and beginning of the Major Arcana Cycle. The Fool - at the point of 0 - is both the end/beginning point of the Major Arcana and yet at the same time outside it/inside it. If you wanted to get really arcane, you could think of each card in the Major Arcana as a step, telling the story or path of one's journey, while the Fool is outside that journey. He's where one begins, but where one ends, and yet also the position from which chaos and disorder is bound to screw up one's journey at any other point.
The Fool, after all, is both innocence and naivete (touching the hot stove out of lack of knowledge, as well as doubt that just because it was hot last time that it'll still be hot this time), but the Fool is also a wise fool, like King Lear's jester. The Fool is frequently shown with his face to the sky while he's stepping off a ledge. Does he see that he's about to plummet off a high cliff, or is it that with faith, one can fly? As my housemate's friend writes, "the mystic swims in the waters where the insane drowns." (James Wasserman, in case you're curious.)
The addendum from another friend is that the magician walks on those waters, but in some ways, the Magician is very much a Master of one's destiny/environment, while the Fool is not. The Magician's role, as primary position in the deck (I, that is), could be considered the final step in the journey as one travels from the Universe (XXI) backwards down to I. The Magician, however, is not "both of the world and in it," since his role is to control and not necessarily just float along happily, like the mystic. Willow, in this case, is not a trickster in the Tarot sense, but the Magician (while Tara is definitely the High Priestess, protecting secrets). She's attempting to control her environment, but she doesn't stay fully within it. One can't be fully within something that one works so hard to deny (human falliability). The Fool embraces all aspects and takes it on a leap of faith, while the Magician tries to build a bridge across the chasm rather than risk falling.
Anya's sometimes the Heirophant, telling us "this is what we should do," and sometimes the Emporer, seeking to conquer and take over (especially in a financial/material sense). Dawn, if anything, is the Star, hovering between firm earth and subtle water, but neither and both at the same time. She's a symbol of hope and good, but also a question of possibilities... "what are you going to do with this inspiration, this power?" Xander, while sometimes playing the Fool, is more the Empress, an emotional, truth-seeing person who encompasses love with clarity and forthrightness. Tara, as I mentioned before, would be the High Priestess, protecting secrets of the unknown, offering knowledge while at the same time protecting the source of those secrets from any who would defile it. Like the moon, she has multiple faces (but not in a negative sense, just in a complicated sense), and her motivations aren't always clear to those around her, as she doesn't always feel the need to explain herself to any but herself. Spike, perhaps, might be Death, not as a dead guy himself, but as the harbinger of change and transformation. Death in the Tarot sense is not always a physical thing, but a radical change from one state to another (usually better). At the same time, Spike could also be the Tower, which must be destroyed so that a new building can rise from the ashes. One is a subtle but strong transformation, while the other is a total and complete destruction. (Given the metaphor of the destroyed building in Smashed, I'd say he's the Tower, wrecking Buffy's preconceptions quite thoroughly... but like with the Tower, it's completely up to her what she does with the debris.)
In the end, Buffy's the Fool, leaping before she looks and merrily going along as she trusts in the universe (and herself) that somehow she'll manage to pull another heroic rescue out of her knapsack.
[> [> [> Yes, well you know... -- fresne, 17:09:26 01/11/02 Fri
Did I type all that. Well, yes and no. I typed all that about two years ago because I'm insane and decided that all my friend's birthday/Christmas gift that year were going to be a tarot deck using Photoshoped pictures of us in various costumes. And I needed a short list that I could look and sort of back brain ponder while surreptitiously conning my friends into lending me pictures that would work for that card.
So, yeah, typing the text wasn't the hard part.
Anyway, in an imagining a Buffy tarot kind of way, I'd see Tara as the Empress, only not in a picture of Tara kind of way. Rather a juxtaposition of Tara as the White Tara, holding a full blown lotus and perhaps a tarot deck, standing over a seated green Tara holding a closed blue lotus. She's just such a grounded and compassionate person. Imagine roots extending from her feet into the earth.
Xander understands people's emotions (he is the heart), but he doesn't always, how shall I say this, he says the harsh truth, but often he says it harshly. He doesn't always understand and forgive, which I see as an essential element of the Empress. Then again, I have to see the end of the season to know just how compassionate Tara is.
Of course, there is also no reason that all of the characters can't at one point or another be all of the cards, depending on where they are in the story.
But I want the burnt out shell of Sunnydale High as the Tower. It's such a burnt out shell.
[> [> Good godz fresne! x 2 -- Shul, 18:28:18 01/11/02 Fri
Too much info....cant contain......overload....BOOM!
[> [> [> *No One* does overload like ATPo! ( O Us, we am mighty, o yea!! ) -- OnM, 21:03:32 01/11/02 Fri
[> [> [> Re: Good godz fresne! x 2 -- fresne, 23:23:29 01/11/02 Fri
Figuratively Dancing - achieved Boom
Insert relevant quote here.
[> A thought about Archetypes. -- Rufus, 00:31:19 01/12/02 Sat
The theme this year is on growing up. Of course that set me to thinking about archetypes and how they may evolve. If you look to the people each character once was, their archetype may have evolve into something else. One of the most changed is Buffy herself...at first she was an airhead cheerleader content to go with the flow of her social life. By the time she got to the Hellmouth she had changed, she was a hero in the making, someone who had answered a call that no matter how contrary to what she wanted to do in the moment, she just couldn't refuse. All you have to do is pop in Welcome to the Hellmouth and see just how far she has become. Then look at Giles, tweed clad watcher with a dark past. But he still started as a tweed clad academic, the difference being that he at first refused his calling and gave into debauchery, only to return to the fold when his conscience finally kicked in. Willow is Library girl, a geek with brains and a budget wardrobe, but a more kind person you could never meet. Willow is in the same place that Giles was so many years ago...my dream is that Giles returns to help the one that he had trusted so much to play by the rules. Xander, the heart, the steadfast friend, a bit of a fool and comic relief himself. If you look past his wisecracks and pay attention you can see just how brave he is....he fights his fear and helps Buffy and the others.So, I wonder, do people always remain their base archetype, or do the layers life puts on you forever block out what you once were, what you once believed? Can you change so much that you can never return to who you were? I think of Willow who has been speculated to be a big bad candidate. I again think back to Giles when I think of how he was able to turn back to a Watcher, reject the shadow of evil he had invited in. If Willow had been evil to start, a cruel person with only selfish motives I would have doubted she could return to who she once was, but the Willow under the costume is the shy, kind, geek, who felt invisible. I think that growing up for her will be to accept that though she isn't a Cheerleader type, what she has always been contributes to the SG as a whole in a way that can't be replaced by simply adding a powerful new member. I love Darlas comment in the Prodigal that tells us that "What we once were informs all that we become..the same love will infect our hearts even if they no longer beat...simple death won't change that." That was said in regards to vampires, but I think that also applies to people as well.
An insanely obsessive question. -- Darby, 08:19:15 01/11/02 Fri
- If I ever needed an indication that I'm thinking WAY too much about BtVS, this is it...
Anybody got any idea what the 3 things taped to Spike's refrigerator are?
His family predates photos. It could be artwork, but Dawn seems a little old (although she has some of here stuff up in her room). Probably not a bus schedule (how did Spike register his car - does Sunnydale DMV have nighttime hours?). It can't be takeout- he can't bite the pizza guy anymore. What can it BE????
Show of hands - who needs a life?
[> Raising my hand - I need a life -- cynesthesia, 09:19:09 01/11/02 Fri
Darby,
You've got company in the obsession department. I'd wondered this in the back of my mind, so when I read your post, I just popped the tape back in the VCR. Pathetic, aren't I?
It's hard to make out. There's are four and they all look a little arty in design. One I can't make out, an art postcard maybe. There's a smaller one that appears to have some lettering. One that's in color appears to have a photo of a male figure that may be either sports-related or just kinda punk. The largest one though is interesting: It's a two tone figure of a face, divided in half - black with a white eye on one side/white with a black eye on the other. Hmm, black and white, dual nature - that fits Spike.
I wish I could see them better (artist, so I always try to notice that stuff). At the very least, Spike appears to have good taste when it comes to graphics.
cynesthesia
[> [> Re: Raising my hand - I need a life -- Stranger, 11:18:56 01/11/02 Fri
Not having seen this pictures, but a blac and white, duality standing figures, wouldn't that stand far better for Angel/Angelus than Spike ?
[> [> [> a small correction I need to make... -- cynesthesia, 12:02:30 01/11/02 Fri
Darby, you were right when you said there were three images. The thing I thought had lettering was the manufacturer's plaque on the door. Need those new glasses fast :)
Stranger,
Spike "can't be a human, can't be a vampire," so I think the dark in light duality does apply to him.
cynesthesia
[> [> [> [> I think Spike is more about standing between the dark and light, in the grey area than about duality -- Stranger, 12:52:16 01/11/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> ????? -- Shul, 18:24:19 01/11/02 Fri
Thou aret splitting hairs me thinks
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, maybe I am :) -- Stranger, 18:39:45 01/11/02 Fri
[> Re: An insanely obsessive question. -- Tellab, 09:42:34 01/11/02 Fri
Those are probably stickers that were already there before he acquired the refrigerator.
[> [> would have to disagree because -- cynesthesia, 10:21:04 01/11/02 Fri
someone at ME with art direction or props consciously selected what was going on that refrigerator door, just as they select all the other props we see on the show. Even when it's just little things, props people are pretty deliberate about what they choose.
cynesthesia
[> [> [> Props on Melrose Place -- darrenK, 11:44:40 01/11/02 Fri
I don't have the article here to refer to, but during the last two years of the show Melrose Place, a famous conceptual artist whose name I can't remember, made all the props on Melrose Place.
The bedsheet pattern was the DNA of HIV.
A lamp had a large photo of a distorted Newt Gingrich on it.
Wallpaper contained thousands of small corporate logos.
There were many others.
The point was to make the props the subtext that the scripts didn't have. The show, which was a sign of the vacuousness of our culture, was suddenly transformed into a commentary on the vacuousness of our culture, but only to those that could identify the props.
My point in talking about this is how powerful the props department can be in affecting the meaning of the show. Things aren't chosen at random.
And the dual nature of Spike is always with him in almost everything he does whereas Angel/Angelus are more like two different people sharing the same body. Angel is conflicted because he knows his past and is trying to make up for it, not because he fights Angelus about every decision he makes.
dK
[> Re: An insanely obsessive question. -- Vickie, 10:31:46 01/11/02 Fri
"how did Spike register his car - does Sunnydale DMV have nighttime hours?"
First, why would Spike register his car? Redemption maybe, but following all the silly little rules?
Second, Web site. You can do that in California. Maybe Willow helped him?
[> [> He'd need his car registered... -- Darby, 14:52:29 01/11/02 Fri
..because it's unattended somewhere all day, where these things get noticed. And under his current circumstances, he definitely does not want to be picked up for some traffic violation when he can't fight his way free.
And back on the original question, it just seems an odd and completely conscious choice to have stuff stuck to the fridge (and it's been there for a while) - it's one of those things that someone on the show must have thought about, and I'm just bugged enough by it to be curious.
[> [> [> Does he still have the car? -- Spike Lover, 16:30:37 01/12/02 Sat
One thing about SunnyD is that they love to walk. Last time I saw Spike on wheels was a motorcycle he stole from a demon. (Maybe the demon had it registered?) Before that he stole the Winnobago.) I think if his car was not registered and it was impounded, he would just steal another one.
[> [> [> [> Re: Insurance rates must be hell in SunnyD -- LeeAnn, 09:10:54 01/13/02 Sun
[> a few possibilities -- vampire hunter D, 13:06:24 01/11/02 Fri
Alright, prop departments have a few ways to go when putting in non-important background decorations. One is that it may be something that has something to do with Spike and his character. You know, something that fits into the character and gives him more personality.
Second, it could be something that has some meaning to James MArsters or a member of the crew. I remember on the E! special about the behind the scenes, that Michelle T said that she was consulted how to decorate Dawn's room, and even added a few of her own personal effects to it. Or, they could JM's cue cards, decorated to hide what they are.
Third, it could be nothing put there so that something is there. Like on Star Trek, some of the sets have stuff written on the panneling or equipment(where instructions or safty warnings would be on such things), but ,on at least one, all it says is "Sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip, that started on this tropic port aboard this tiny ship". Now, that has nothing to do with the show, but something needed to go there, so they put that (in small letters that can't be read by the audience).
Lastly, it could be something like darren said the Melrose Place people did. Somethng symbolic and meaningful, but without anything to do with the show.
btw, I have both hands ,and one leg, up.
[> [> Re: a few possibilities -- fresne, 14:23:45 01/11/02 Fri
Yes, well all of the items on the back shelf at the Magic Box are labeled with references to the Buffy cast and crew.
For example: Noxon's eyeballs, Xander's hormones, etc.
They also apparantly have a terrible time with the chalk boards, which often sprout interesting suggestions. Also an amazing number of books on the lower shelf with the word Faith in the title.
[> Re: An insanely obsessive question. -- celticross, 21:19:03 01/11/02 Fri
*raising hand* Oo, oo, I do, I do!
Of course, the first thing I thought of when I saw something on Spike's fridge was that maybe he had those refridgator poetry magnets... :)
[> Re: An insanely obsessive question. -- Katrina, 10:41:34 01/12/02 Sat
I noticed them and, not being to make them out, assumed they were flyers or stickers for bands. Seems like an old punk rock thing to do.
[> [> Re: An insanely obsessive question. -- Rattletrap, 05:24:40 01/13/02 Sun
"assumed they were flyers or stickers for bands"
Good assumption, especially considering the number of things in Sunnydale decorated with band posters or bumper stickers. It wouldn't surprise me if Spike's fridge got the same treatment. Nearly every episode has several shots of stickers/posters for Widespread Panic and/or The String Cheese Incident. Has anyone caught any others?
[> His family does not predate photos -- listening, 05:48:22 01/14/02 Mon
I believe he was supposedly vamped in the 1880s? Civil War photography, anyone (1860s)? (Haven't read the other responses yet, sorry if this is a repetition.)
[> [> Re: His family does not predate photos -- Darby, 09:48:47 01/14/02 Mon
I din't mean that literally, and it may not even be true, but I put Spike in an era (and I always figured him for later, Victorian times) that it would have been unusual for families to have photos taken.
[> [> [> Re: His family does not predate photos -- vandalia, 13:12:21 01/14/02 Mon
Actually, photography was quite the rage, especially amongst the upper classes of society, almost from the time it was introduced in about 1839.
"The mushrooming of photographic establishments reflects photography's growing popularity; from a mere handful in the mid 1840s the number had grown to 66 in 1855, and to 147 two years later. In London, a favourite venue was Regent Street where, in the peak in the mid 'sixties there were no less than forty-two photographic establishments!" (From here).
A dagerrotype cost about a guinea, which would have been a week's wage for a working man. William's family appears to me to be quite a bit more well off than your average day-laborer.
Since William was turned in 1880, I assume he was born some time in the 1860's, when photography was already well-established. So not only is it likely that there were photographs of human William, its quite possible he had baby pictures!
Buffy in the classroom -- Conor MacManus, 08:56:51 01/11/02 Fri
I am teaching a course this summer on literature of television to a class of 7th and 8th grade advanced students. Obviously I want to use some Buffy. Given the young age of the students I need to be careful of the content of the episodes I show. I plan on showing "out of sight, out of mind" for sure, and will probably add "Hush" and "The Body" if i can get them approved. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
[> Re: Buffy in the classroom -- dfrisby, 10:51:20 01/11/02 Fri
I would use the first episode of season two and also the first episode of season three
[> Re: Buffy in the classroom -- Sebastian, 11:02:38 01/11/02 Fri
perhaps 'earshot'. i think lot of kids in that age bracket could relate to the themes in that ep.
just my thoughts.
- S
[> [> Another vote for Earshot... -- Darby, 18:11:40 01/11/02 Fri
...for its message of "Nobody's noticing your pain because they're too wrapped up in their own."
Also, Nightmares because it would lead into an interesting writing assignment, wouldn't it?
[> [> [> Still another vote for earshot -- darrenK, 22:01:22 01/11/02 Fri
I would vote for Earshot on two counts.
One is the way it relates to life in high school with humor, compassion and grace.
Two is the way that Joss and Jane manage to use the discussion of Shakespeare to illuminate what's happening between Buffy and Angel. That was truly brilliant.
If there's a third reason, I'd have to say the cheerleading scene which is flat out hilarious.
If a 4th reason, then the inner monologue scene. I still can't believe Oz's inner monologue. It's too good.
etc.
dK
[> How about "The Gift" ? -- AurraSing, 12:20:48 01/11/02 Fri
With it's themes of love,bravery and sacrifice,it would make for good discussion...
[> [> Prophecy Girl -- fresne, 14:05:14 01/11/02 Fri
Or in a related way, Prophesy Girl, which given Buffy's age at the time, may really hit home with them.
[> Fool For Love -- Maxwell, 20:23:47 01/11/02 Fri
For my money "Fool For Love" is the best written episode of Buffy. The structure is elegant, with the flash backs of Spikes life and the way the past connects with the present. The character exposition is complete and in depth. The emotional content is extremely powerful and leads directly to strong character development. It just cries out for analysis.
[> [> Probably won't make it past the censors... -- Traveler, 02:22:32 01/12/02 Sat
Remember the sex scene between Spike and Dru?
[> Re: Buffy in the classroom -- Kerri, 22:06:53 01/11/02 Fri
Firstly, I'd say 7th and 8th graders are going to be such a varied age group since the some show's content will only be appropriate for some of the students. I guess the question is what the focus of the class is. Is it more a survey in styles and pop-culture in tv or is it more of an analytical, english-class type course. In terms of a survey of tv today i would agree with your choices because they show the social commentary and emotional depth of BtVS. If the class is more literature appreciation than I might chose some of the more symbolic (perhaps the gift) or hero's journey episodes (prophecy girl). In order to get a real feel for the character element of the show u really need to watch many episodes-that is something u can't show with one or two episodes-and IMO that's the best part of the show.
I'm going to throw this out there............ -- AurraSing, 15:28:49 01/11/02 Fri
Yesterday Voyager ate this long post I had written discussing what appears to me to be the ME view that parents are one of the un-heralded enemies in the Buffyverse.This just occured to me in the past few days once I began thinking about how Buffy and her friends are changing as they become true adults-instead of just kids who had to grow up to fast because they lived on the Hellmouth.
Since I'm still rather ticked at Voy,I thought I'd redo the post in point form and invite those of you who are interested to pass along your thoughts on this matter.
1.Parents have been consistently portrayed in a negative manner on both "Buffy" and "Angel".
Willow's parents neglected her,Xander's parents are horrible people to be around so we never get to see them (ie it's fascinating how the Xander dream in "Restless" shows the evil force coming from upstairs and not outside)Cordy's parents threw money and trips at her to avoid dealing with being good parents,did Oz have parents???,Hank Summers is a deadbeat dad,Amy's mom was a horrible witch,yadda,yadda,yadda.Even Giles as a father figure to Buffy has turned out leaving just when she apparently needs him the most.
On "Angel" we have Wesley,whose father appears to be mentally abusive,Kate's dad who obviously should have spent a lot more time being with his daughter than working on his career,Gunn who seems to have run away from his family,Lorne whose mother would rather he be dead than around to embarass her,parents who sexually abuse and manipulate their children.
I'd add more but I think you get my drift.......
2.Joyce was perhaps the one parent seen in a postive light but even then she had her darker moments.Her anger and harshness in "Bargaining 1 and 2" certainly had some justification but when she literally tells Buffy not to come back home if she leaves the house at that point was a very cruel thing to watch.To me it felt like the ranting of a parent who refuses to deal with the reality of their child's life by turning their back on them-Buffy was not doing dope or selling herself.How much better could their relationship have been if Buffy could have come out of the Slayer closet a lot sooner and if Joyce had tried to open some lines of communication with Giles???
Fred's parents seem to be pretty nice people...hmnnnn,I wonder if there is something wrong with them we just have not seen yet.
3.Finally down to my point!! This year the theme on "Buffy" is apparently "Oh,grow up" and yet in many ways the grownups on this show have been not really helpful or good or even very responsible.Obviously the vast majority of adults in Sunnydale turn a blind eye to many horrible things going on around them,things that their kids seem to be left to deal with by themselves.
How sad is it that Willow is going through all her problems without the aid and comfort of her parents??(obviously she cannot trust them with her secrets) Where the hell is Hank??? Should Xander even bother inviting his parents to the wedding??
I'm just curious if anyone out there sees the same sort of pattern emerging.I mean,if every set of parents was like the ones in Sunnydale,every kid out there would be fighting growing up because they would be scared of turning out like their folks.In fact Xander seems to have escaped the big brawl that seems to be his parents relationship but sometimes the way he treats Anya really makes me wonder.......
Are parents and other figures of authority always the bad guys?? What is ME trying to say here??
[> Learning from the past -- Kerri, 16:51:11 01/11/02 Fri
Maybe the task ahead for the Scoobs is not to fall into the pattern of repeating history, and instead grow into the person they can be if they learn and grow from the past instead of letting it hurt them.
[> [> Re: parenting and alcohol -- DEN, 17:38:39 01/11/02 Fri
In the context of "parents as evil," a couple of recent postings and the "Joyce" character analysis have referred in strong terms to her having a drinking problem. I can recall her drinking only twice: after she discovers Buffy's "secret identity" in "Becoming Part 2," and at the party that "celebrates" Buffy's homecoming at the start of S3. The circumstances in both cases, IMO, fully support having a drink or two! Nor is Joyce exactly reduced to sodden incoherence. I'd appreciate info on other eps I might have missed where Joyce and alcohol are involved, and will correspondingly welcome further development of the reasoning behind the argument for Joyce as crypto-alcoholic, as opposed to someone who occasionally needs a bit of Dutch courage in order to deal.
[> [> [> Re: parenting and alcohol -- Wolfhowl3, 19:25:26 01/11/02 Fri
There was only one other instince of Joyce drinking, and that was "Band Candy" where all the adult started acting like teenages.
I don't think that Joyce reflects any aspect of a Drinking Problem.
Wolfhowl3
[> [> [> Re: parenting and alcohol -- Malandanza, 22:09:09 01/12/02 Sat
"In the context of 'parents as evil,' a couple of recent postings and the 'Joyce' character analysis have referred in strong terms to her having a drinking problem. I can recall her drinking only twice: after she discovers Buffy's 'secret identity' in 'Becoming Part 2,' and at the party that 'celebrates' Buffy's homecoming at the start of S3. The circumstances in both cases, IMO, fully support having a drink or two!"
We rarely saw Joyce in the first two seasons, but in the B2 scene you mention:
Joyce sits in the living room with Spike. They both are silent and uncomfortable, like it's Sunday and he's come a' courtin'. Joyce has a glass of bourbon in her hands, which shakes only slightly.
But it is the end of the Buffy/Joyce scene where the suggestion that Joyce drinks too much is made:
BUFFY: I'm gonna need Kendra's sword.
JOYCE: Sword? Buffy, what's happening?
BUFFY: (impatiently)Just have another drink, okay?
JOYCE: Don't you talk to me like that!
She hurls her glass to the floor, shattering it.
JOYCE: You can't just drop something like this on me and pretend it's nothing!
(From the shooting scripts)
Why would Buffy say "Just have another drink" if her mother only touched alcohol once a year? To me, this was Joss' way of telling us that Joyce regularly drank a glass of bourbon. I would say that when she told Buffy not to come back if she left the house, that was partly the alcohol talking -- if she had been in full possession of her mental faculties, banishing Buffy is unforgivable. If she has a drinking problem (and knows it, but is angry and ashamed when she realizes her daughter is aware of a problem she thought was her dirty little secret) then the banishment is, at least, understandable. I do think that B2 contained Joyce's worst moment (and Buffy's best).
[> for the most part I would agree with the lack of real parenting Skills .... -- Wolfhowl3, 19:21:40 01/11/02 Fri
... But I would have to disagree with Giles falling into that catagory.
Giles has always only done what is best for Buffy, even when he went back to England. Buffy needed to learn how to stand on her own in the Real world, (not just the world of the Slayer), and she would never be able to do that with Giles there.
Also, Fred seemed to have Great Parents, they were loving, concerned and Supportive of her. I just loved her Dad's line near the end, "We will have to stay for a few Weeks, just to make sure that you really want to stay!" I was cheering when I first heard that!
[> [> Re: for the most part I would agree with the lack of real parenting Skills .... -- Liz, 01:03:54 01/12/02 Sat
About Joyce and drinking: I don't think Joyce had any problem with drinking. Joyce was frequently ignorant, but the only time I saw her putting her own desires first to Buffy's detriment was in "Ted." Now _that_ was a creepy episode. Within the storyline you don't have to blame her because she was high on Ted's cookies. But I've seen an article in Slayage (which is a fairly nifty magazine, if overly pedantic) about bad parenting that postulated that the cookie drugs were a metaphor for everything Joyce was getting out of the relationship--that she was high on her own happiness and unwilling to see that Ted was abusive to Buffy.
However that's outside the story. Within it, it wasn't really all her fault. And in general Joyce has been a good parent. Except for that willful ignorance thing. But she still kept trying.
I would, however, include Giles in the category of unhelpful parents. Not that I think he was exactly a parent to Buffy. I know that he played that role sometimes and that both the characters and the writers refer to it that way, but it was a little more complex than that. I spent a long while trying to figure out why Giles left. I was trying to piece together a consistant reason, because I think that she really does need him. Whenever I try to sort out everything that Buffy is going through, I always end up saying, "And Giles just left her for her own good?" Yes, she was leaning on him too hard, and yes she needed to stand up and be an adult. But she also was going through hell and needs some help. When I rewatched "Bargaining I" I think I finally got the remaining piece. Giles confesses to BuffyBot that he got his slayer killed, and that he might have been a terrible watcher, and that she might have been better off without him. If he's spent all summer thinking that he's responsible for her death because he was a failure as a watcher then that might be the cause of the slightly bizarre things he does during the 6th season. When he comes back and she starts relying on him for everything--when he sees himself making her weaker and screwing her up in exactly the way the council told him he would when they fired him--then he might just decide that she's better off without him. She disagreed. I tend to disagree as well. Buffy really needed Giles, the way he used to be. But things change and I don't think Giles was able to do that any more. If he could have stayed and still managed to guide her and help her, then that would have been a godsend. But I think he was confused and emotionally wrung out and, most importantly, he didn't think that he could do her any good.
As you can see I've put way too much thought into this. But I'm just trying to make his leaving consistant with his character. Because she really did need him. But he just wasn't able to help her. And I'd say that ends him up in the category of failed parent, if you're going to call him a parent. I don't tend to call him a parent, but that's me.
To the other point, I'm not sure what happens when the scoobies grow up. Maybe they have to change what it means to be a grown up. I don't know--it's one of those things I should try not to speculate about any more because I really don't know what's going to happen next.
[> Re: I'm going to throw this out there............ -- vandalia, 21:36:35 01/11/02 Fri
And Amy's dad was a good guy at the end of Witch...
[> Re: I'm going to throw this out there............ -- Deeva, 22:53:34 01/11/02 Fri
I think that the point is that the Scoobs can become good & valuable people even though they do not have good examples set at home. A reverse of your questions would be the why in all the kids we hear about who are self-destructive to the point where they hurt others as well. A pretty good example is the teen-ager in Florida. A co-worker of mine seems to think that if that kid's parents could've spent more time with him, this would've never happened. I disagree. Sometimes there is no way to explain the why, at least not a clear answer.
The next thing that I'll be saying could be seen as very controversial or maybe even sad but you know how when people say things like, "Your parents taught you right" or "You were raised right". I don't like it. Kids have to be receptive to the lessons being taught to them and parents have to be receptive to their kids. Sometimes, the lessons don't sink in for one reason or another. Is it the parents fault? The kids? I dunno. My guess is that you just hope for the best. Well, I'll stop now cause I'm not sure I'm making any sense.
[> [> Re: I'm going to throw this out there............ -- Brian, 04:43:59 01/12/02 Sat
Actually, you are making a lot of sense. Sometimes things just go wrong. Bad Karma. Bad choices. When bad things happen to good people.
[> I think its less, What's ME trying to say?, more, who're ME trying to relate to? -- AngelVSAngelus, 01:30:28 01/14/02 Mon
not to say that that's their sole motive with telling these stories with the element of neglegible parental figures, but as the product of a very dysfunctional family, I can say that watching a show in which a main theme is family being defined as the people you choose rather than those you are hereditarily tied to provides me with a great deal of happiness. It echoes something I've learned in my experience with my blood bound family, and then with the friends I've come to know over the past six years.
Spike in "Halloween" -- Kerri, 16:54:04 01/11/02 Fri
Watching the rerun on fx and I thought I'd bring up something that has always bothered me. Spike was willing to kill Buffy when she was helpless. This seems a bit out of character, for Spike killing (especially slayers) was about conquest. I'd think that he'd want to wait for a good fight with Buffy. Any ideas?
[> Re: Spike in "Halloween" -- M, 17:16:35 01/11/02 Fri
You have a good point there Kerri, but I think the main reason that Spike's actions seem so out of character in "Halloween" is the fact that it was only his second appearance in the series and the plan was to kill him off in an upcoming episode, thus making his character development an inconsequential point. Had Joss and Co. known from the beginning that Spike was going to be a full-time character with a set background and code, I doubt they would have had him going after a helpless Buffy, for as you pointed out, it goes completely against his philosophy of fighting with your back against the wall and knowing that you might not win. Another more blatant example of discontinuity regarding Spike can of course be found in "School Hard" when he states that Angel was his sire, and as we all know, this was later changed.
[> [> Re: Spike in "Halloween" -- grace, 23:06:09 01/11/02 Fri
see an earlier post where we discussed who made spike...
[> [> Re: Spike in "Halloween" -- dsf, 18:03:22 01/12/02 Sat
My best no-prize explanation (that is, within the fictional universe): Spike's responsibility to Drusilla. She can't afford to wait, in danger from this formidable Slayer and her allies, while he indulges himself taking chances.
Which might satisfy me, except for the delight he clearly takes in Buffy's helplessness. Oh, well.
dsf
Got my Buffy DVDs -- change, 17:07:33 01/11/02 Fri
I just picked up a set of BtVS season 1 DVDs. I was surprised when I saw them because I thought they weren't suppose to be out until the 15'th. Got them at Sam's Club for $25.99.
Anyway, I've got something to do tonight (boy do I need a life).
The DVDs don't seem to have all that many features. The only episodes with a running commentary are WttHM and the Harvest. The interviews with Joss are the same ones that were on the videos. But who cares. I've got all 12 episodes now. Although there is a nice little sticker on the box that says I really have all 24 episodes.
There is also a card with the DVDs that says the season 2 box won't be out until June. I thought someone on this board said they were coming out in May.
[> No, it's June now. At least that's what Spoiler Slayer reported on Thursday. -- Deeva, 22:16:38 01/11/02 Fri
[> Word of the day: Flabottum -- change, 04:32:21 01/12/02 Sat
I just watched WttHM and the Harvest with Joss's commentary turned on. I was hoping to hear about all the philosophical meanings of things in the episode from the master himself. However, he stayed away from that for the most part, which is probably a good thing since, if he had gone into that with all the episodes, we wouldn't have so much to talk about on this board.
He did give a lot of little anecdotes about how the episodes were made and why some things were done the way they were. For example, we only see Xander on a skate board once because it is too difficult to light the area needed for that type of scene. Same thing for why we don't see the upper level of the Bronze very much. The real reason why the Master was trapped in the underground church for 11 episodes was so that we wouldn't have 11 episodes of the Master trying to kill Buffy but failing.
As for flabottum, it is Joss's nickname for all the mystical double talk and trinkets they had to invent for the show. I think everyone on this board should try to use flabottum in conversation today.
[> [> actually... -- Laural, 10:30:10 01/12/02 Sat
Phlebotomy is a real word.
Murky on details: Some quick Q/A -- Maddy, 18:26:12 01/11/02 Fri
How old is the Slayer mythology? When did the first Slayer rise? 5? 10? thousand years ago? More or less? Just curious.
Does anyone have any idea of the ages of Spike and Angel when they got vamped? The reason for this is that Angel has always seemed older (duh) than Buffy in season one and two. He does not act like he is a perpetual 20 year old so to speak. Yes, he has "matured" and all that good stuff, but still he just seemed a little old, especially for Bufffy when she was 16. Spike seems a little in tune with the age he was vamped at. Maybe he is immature. Just curious what others think.
With Dawn m.i.a. and Tara off screen in the past ep. is it possible Dawn has turned to her because she is the only one paying attention to how Dawn feels right now. I've seen in other boards that Dawn is out stealing, or doing God knows what, but I disagree. She is turning to the only mother figure in the show (IMO). I could be wrong.
Also, I came across a topic the other day about Spike and Anya having a lot in common, but they are treated differently. How does one account for this. Both killed, and did not particularly ask for their non-killing status. How is it okay for Anya, are we to believe that she is devoid of contempt and Spike isn't? Has she properly atoned? And is so, how?
[> Anya vrs spike -- Shul, 18:40:02 01/11/02 Fri
I believe Anya was given a soul or had one to begin with and didnt lose it. Spike soul got taken away and it was never returned.Furthermore Anya did not act specifically for her own benefit, she was summoned and performed acts of vengeance for wronged women. The power was in her possesion but it was the women who used the power, it could be interpreted that she was merely a vessel for the power of vengeance. In other words, an inanimate thing who had a will and maybe a soul, but no real choice how the power got used. Meaning she was just along for the ride. She certainly enjoyed it but there a few bits of evidence that she didnt have control over the power thus was entirely responsible. Though all of this is completely debatable and depends greatly upon the state of her soul during her ten-year as vengeance demon. When she was a demon did she have a soul? Did she have control of the power, if so how much. Once she accepted the job, did her metaphysical nature change or remain the same as when she was a human.
The anya vrs spike question can not be answered due to lack of information on the nature of anya, not to mention the highly questionable metaphysical nature of spike and vampires in general. we just dont know.
[> [> Re: Anya vrs spike -- maddy, 18:46:35 01/11/02 Fri
But is Anya remorseful? We know that Angel was remorseful when he got his soul back, and Spike has been forced into his situation, but Anya was once human, and was turned demon. But now that she is human again, she does not seem remorseful. She brags about how she maimed, killed, punished. She was performing a service for others, but she doesn't seem particularly bothered by what she did.
[> [> [> Re: Anya vrs spike -- MayaPapaya9, 22:26:38 01/11/02 Fri
I can so see Buffy throwing that in Xander's face once she comes clean about her dealings with Spike and Xander yells at her. That's like the perfect comeback. It's true, Anya has never showed any repentance whatsoever for killing hundreds of men. She never atoned. If she could get her powers back she would, as she has said over and over again.
[> [> [> [> Re: Anya vrs spike -- pagangodess, 04:40:20 01/12/02 Sat
Anya could ask Willow. She could be easily talked into it afer a trip to Rack's. Ha ha.
[> [> [> anya's remorse -- Shul, 03:10:42 01/13/02 Sun
From the point of view of vengeance, she did nothing wrong. In her eyes they all deserved. In her eyes she was a instrument of order and justice. I dont believe this to be true, im just trying to tell it from her point of view.As for spike, before his chip and even a bit after he never thought of himself as anything but the big bad.Joss seems in some way to connect self perception with morality.....or at the very least ethics.
just a thought
[> [> [> Re: the troll -- LeeAnn, 09:26:49 01/13/02 Sun
Plus she got the job as a vengence demon by turning that big dumb guy she was dating into a troll, while she was still human.
[> [> [> [> Metapyhsical Anya -- Shul, 18:55:51 01/13/02 Sun
Is it possible that anya does infact have a demon soul, with a young human lady physiology and psycology. meaning mind and body. Perhaps her recent leanings for goodness come not from her soul but from 3 other things
1. Mind. Meaning her brain functions like a normal human, it is my belief that social kindness is ingrained in are brain. We are hard wired social animals. This doesnt mean we cant be bad or insane, all systems have defects. It just means we have a natural predisposition towards living by the rules (not necessarily the laws) that society has agreed upon.
2. Company. It was never clearly stated but vengeance demon anya seemed to hang out all the time with the "undesirable elements" of society like Scorned, angry, bitter woman, demons, trolls and the like. Human Anya spends all her time hanging out with the Scooby Gang (maily Xander), the proverbial Defenders of Light, Justice, and Truth, Yadda Yadda. Is it any wonder that she gravitates slightly toward goodness now, regardless of the state of her mind body and soul.
3.Body and Physics. As a demon hybrid (or whatever she was) Anya probably had a different body with different needs. It is concievable that demon bodies produce more adrenaline (or the demon equivalent) or perhaps some other chemicals that might predispose them to behavior that us humans would consider "wrong".
P.S. It is my firm belief that above and supersceding all other reasons for Anya being the way she is, is the following. Because Joss likes her that way, shes cute funny and makes a damn good plot device!
3 Cheers for the Anya we all know and love.
[> Re: Murky on details: Some quick Q/A -- Rufus, 19:07:43 01/11/02 Fri
How old is the Slayer mythology? When did the first Slayer rise? 5? 10? thousand years ago? More or less? Just curious
Season one, The Harvest will tell you the story, but I suggest you look at the episode section that Masquerade has, it is full of goodies. It also give lots of information regarding all the vampires and demons on the show. You could get lost in all the information on ATPoBTVS.
Also, I came across a topic the other day about Spike and Anya having a lot in common, but they are treated differently. How does one account for this. Both killed, and did not particularly ask for their non-killing status. How is it okay for Anya, are we to believe that she is devoid of contempt and Spike isn't? Has she properly atoned? And is so, how?
I guess if you want to compare them, Anya was a demon turned back into a human. She has seniority in the evil business as she is approx. 1100 yrs old, I can only think that practice makes perfect. Spike is still a demon, but one in an interesting perdicament, the chip in his head prevents him from acting out what is natural to him. So, how much can he learn from this, and will that knowledge be shed once he is able to kill again. Anya is human, Spike is still a demon......neither seems very sorry for anything they did. Anya thinks of it as a job, you do your shift and rest til the next one. Spike still would like to work in the field of human slaughter, but can't. How can either ever atone for what they have done, the suffering they caused? All the people they hurt can't have any input on their current situation. There is nothing that will bring the dead back, undo the hurt they caused. I can only go by Giles words in the I in team (I think) about Spike considering the fact that he may in in a unique position to work for a higher purpose. Spike didn't listen then, but does that mean he will never consider that option, to work for a higher purpose, for something that will give him no gain. Anya is a human, she will live out her life that way, her punishment if we can call it that is to grow old and die. I don't have much of a problem with her because she hasn't continued her demon ways as a human.
September 11 patriotism in "Gone" -- Rachel, 19:59:32 01/11/02 Fri
Did you notice when Buffy left the beauty salon that a van parked outside (not the infamous black van) had "God Bless America" and "United We Stand" stickers on its rear window? Jonathan was also wearing a t-shirt adorned with USA in big letters. Was this episode filmed after 9/11? Perhaps those events were part of the catalyst that made Buffy realize she didn't want to die. Unity seemed to be a subtext throughout...Xander/Anya's wedding, Buffy trying to keep Dawn, Buffy's sexual union with Spike, Willow/Xander in a friendship throwback to seasons past. This is my first post here and I'm not sure if anyone else noticed this.
[> Unity -- Kerri, 21:20:06 01/11/02 Fri
Welcome! I agree that unity and aceptance of self are big themes this season.
[> Re: September 11 patriotism in "Gone" -- Darby, 08:35:19 01/12/02 Sat
I just thought that crew members were parking their cars along the street of "Sunnydale" to give the shot authenticity (and the crew somewhere to park)...
[> too bad, IMO -- yuri, 11:11:58 01/12/02 Sat
as someone who is rather repulsed and scared by the outburst of patriotism since 9.11, I hope that the patriotic paraphenalia doesn't become too much of a trend (I hadn't noticed it in the episodes). My gut instinct is to assume someone I hold in such high intellectual esteem like JW would agree with my politics, but that's a silly and dangerous sort of assumption to make.
However I have no moral qualms with the idea that "Perhaps those events were part of the catalyst that made Buffy realize she didn't want to die."
it's interesting. Though I doubt it. To me, it would take away from the plot to use something like that to develop a situation. Not everyone had the same reaction to that event, so not everyone would be able to understand any specific way it could be used.
[> [> Re: too bad, IMO -- Rachel, 17:19:59 01/12/02 Sat
Sunnydale seems to be an "in the world but not of the world" kind of a town. Definitely not a place where I would expect a burst of flag-waving. In real life, SMG is a New Yorker...maybe those were her bumper stickers (although she doesn't seem like the mini-van-driving type). In any case, I would expect JW's patriotic expressions to be subtle, if there at all. Half the fun of watching BtVS, though, is looking for mundane details that might turn out to be not so mundane in a future episode. For me, Slayer is in the details :-) Keeps my frame-by-frame feature on the VCR in good working order.
[> [> Re: too bad, IMO -- JBone, 17:38:29 01/12/02 Sat
as someone who is rather repulsed and scared by the outburst of patriotism since 9.11, I hope that the patriotic paraphenalia doesn't become too much of a trend
Not to worry, the efficiency and dedication of those sworn to fight and die for your right to be repulsed will likely make such an exhibition unnecessary.
[> [> [> Go JBone! -- MayaPapaya9, 18:58:12 01/12/02 Sat
[> [> [> Wee! Thanks JBone! -- Duquessa des Esseintes, 23:17:03 01/12/02 Sat
[> [> [> i hope this gets read even though it's almost archived -- yuri, 10:58:14 01/14/02 Mon
well, "I'm not against the soldiers, I'm against the war," and whatever they have been told they're fighting for, as far as I know is a lie. They're unwittingly fighting for the power and money of people they'll never meet. I'm sorry if to me the flag represents the unimagniable and incalculable travesties that this country has imposed on other peoples, and its own, for the sake of power and wealth for an elite minority. This is why blind patriotism scares me. In the interest of time right now, I am not citing any specifics, but if challenged I would be perfectly glad -- well I'm not glad about any of it ... perfectly _willing_ to do so. Please take this as a respectful contention.
[> [> [> [> Re: i hope this gets read even though it's almost archived -- Mr Gordo, 11:13:41 01/14/02 Mon
You have every right to your opinion. People are cautious about openly claiming to be against the war and that is wrong IMHO. You can condemn terrorism and the world trade center attack without supporting the bombing of women and children. Whatever happened to free speech and the right to an opinion? People are being openly critical and disrespectful of your views which is wrong.
The US is hated by many Muslim nations and Bin Laden and others brainwash people into seeing America as evil. It must be destroyed regardless of the cost to innocent civilians. The victims of the world trade center are seen as expendable.
George Bush is doing exactly the same thing in bombing another country for the greater good regardless of innocent lives lost. All it will achieve is to increase hatred of America.
Remember Afganistan sees America as we see terrorists. Evil, destructive etc.
[> [> [> [> [> well said! and thank you. -- yuri, 12:26:11 01/14/02 Mon
[> [> Patriotism-OT -- Eric, 23:06:19 01/12/02 Sat
(Taking a deep breath and saving vs. emotional rant)
I'm going to assume your politics are to the left and you're thoroughly educated on America's shortcomings. My question is: Why don't you leave? There are many fine nations to choose from. I would suggest a Scandinavian nation since they harbor the most advanced and functional form of liberalism. But I would bet money you wont. Why? Because you Love it here. Its where your job, friends, family, spouse or lover, hangouts, enemies, are. Its where your home is and the causes you champion. You can cite, chapter and verse, every screwed up thing America has ever done in violation of the laws of God, man, and its own principles. But you wont leave because you love this country. You, whether you like it or not, are a Patriot. Depending on your fervor and education you may be a greater Patriot than I. After all, if you know ALL your lover's warts and faults but don't leave, you must really love them. However, you must distinguish between Patriotism and Nationalism. The distinction is important, since even Adolf Hitler acknowledged it. Patriotism is you - posting the the ATPoBtVS board and (again I assume) striving in your own way to make this country live up to its promises. Nationalism is the obnoxious "my country right or wrong" rabble rousing that masks corruption, starts/exacerbates wars, justifies tyranny, and fosters genocide. (Yes, America has been there/done that.) Hitler adamantly stated the Nazis were Nationalists and just as adamantly stated they were NOT Patriots. So don't feel bad. Is Patriotism scary? No, it is merely a conscious acceptance of what people have always felt toward the USA dramatically represented. And like all emotions it will pass. What is scary is being at war, which no matter how you feel about it or how well we're doing puts everything at risk.
[> [> [> Wow! Knee jerk much? (still OT) -- Darby, 12:06:20 01/13/02 Sun
That seemed a bit of an overreaction based on not much.
I too am a little bit uncomfortable with the extent, the swing I guess, of patriotic fervor. We needed a bit of a push, I think, but when the pendulum picks up momentum, it's naive to not expect some bad to come with the good. My politics are more right than left, but at my root I'm not a big believer in the human animal, especially as a collective, and I worry when a potentially dangerous trend gets rolling. And, to use your Hitler reference (cliched and using a shotgun where a flyswatter should be, but it's in the discussion), you can't expect everyone else to draw the distinction between patriotism and blind nationalism just because you define it a certain way. Understanding the connections, and being leary of them under our circumstances - and I see your automatic rejection of the idea, and your quick, facile categorization of the speaker as a good example - just makes sense.
Yuri, should I have kept my mouth shut?
[> [> [> [> Re: Wow! Knee jerk much? (still OT)-Yep -- Eric, 17:23:26 01/13/02 Sun
Yep, just call me the button guy. I believe the distinction between Patriotism and Nationalism is valid and that people that cannot make it have done themselves and their country a disservice. As for distrust of the human animal, that's understandable. There will always be somebody around to turn an existing situation to their benefit at the cost of others. BTW, a concern I have now besides my need for "facile catagorizations" is the mass detaining of muslim suspects by the FBI. Certainly plenty are dangerous terrorists, but many are also innocent. And they are all being held without charges for an indefinite period of time in violation of American civil liberty laws and ideals. Now the Romans used to say that in war time the laws are silent. This is a very pragmatic approach to stopping terrorist acts. But the law in America is ultimately the voice of the people and the nation's ideals. If silence is maintained too long we may lose our voice. I hope this concerns both sides of the political spectrum. Finally, I don't know what Yuri thinks, but I think its good for you to speak up. If I want unanimous agreement I'll talk to myself. And if it helps, this is my last post on this subject.
[> [> [> [> [> I don't have a problem with patriotism...My problem is with people making money off of patriotism. -- Rob, 22:33:12 01/13/02 Sun
I think that all of the recent patriotism is very touching, in light of the September 11th attacks, and this is coming from a very not-usually-patriotic person (myself). I do not have a problem in seeing the American flag everywhere, but in the fact that people are making money off a lot of these items, and most of it is not going to any Sept. 11th funds. All of the mini-flags for cars, bumper stickers, earrings, necklaces, etc etc are being sold by people trying to make money off the recent patriotic fervor. Sadly, this is another ironic commentary on America--yes, a great deal of us (hopefully most) have true, genuine feelings of sadness and outrage about Sept. 11th, but that won't stop a lot of people from trying to milk it for money, and using people's grief against them. But I guess that's just capitalism at work...
To be patriotic, you must buy, buy, buy. Any cheap piece of garbage can sell now, as long as it has an American flag picture drawn on it. And I think that's really sad.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> My own perspective...o/t -- Rahael, 08:10:17 01/14/02 Mon
This is a very o/t post, but anyway. My own point of view is that being patriotic is something I've never been able to be, just because of who I am. Being half and half of two different groups, each engaged in a vicious civil war with each other, I found that I was automatically excluded from each sides' formulation of national identity and patriotism.
In fact, it was only excluding people like me, who didn't 'belong' that both national and patriotic identities were created. Of course, one could argue that such identities, formed in the crucible of a civil war, are automatically exclusive. But now, living in Britain, I find that I am excluded again, from being 'patriotic' or being part of a 'national identity'. I might have a passport declaring I am a citizen, but apparently, the fact that I wasn't born here will always exclude me. This is despite the fact that I would pass any 'cultural' identity test, being immersed in British literature, history and culture. Some of my black/Asian friends think I'm white on the inside - to white Europeans, I will always be Asian.
What does this have to do with Buffy? Principally that the feeling of being marginalised, but in a good way, that comes across so often in Sunnydale, is one of the things that always attracted me to this programme. Also, the basic message of the ep 'Family', while sentimental, is also heartening - 'belonging' and 'kinship' should be about more than birth or blood. My reading of 'The Gift' was that it derived its power from Dawn being 'everywoman', at once Buffy, at once every innocent human being that Buffy had saved in the previous apocalypses. Just as Joyce's death rammed home the awfulness of all human deaths, Dawn's fate emphasises the sanctity of all human life. From the individual, to the universal. (Ask not for whom the bell tolls.......).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tribalism vs. Value-ism -- matching mole, 10:02:26 01/14/02 Mon
Before I make any comments here are my own biases. I'm left leaning, in the sense of what issues I consider to be important, but fairly pragmatic in terms of solutions. My situation is in some ways the reverse of Rahael's. I'm a Canadian who has lived most of his adult life in the U.S. Because the cultural differences between the U.S. and Anglophone Canada are, on a global scale, relatively minor I can easily 'pass' for either an American or a Canadian wherever I might be. But to a certain extent I don't really feel completely a part of either culture anymore.
I think that Eric's dichotomy between Nationalism and Patriotism is really more of a continuum. At one end is what I will call Tribalism - loyalty to and identification with a group simply because it is the group you belong to. Imagine a town with two high schools A and B. The student body of each is randomly drawn from the town population. Students are loyal to their own school and have a fierce rivalry with the other despite the fact that there is no real difference between them. At the other end is what I will call value-ism where people identify with a group because of the values that the group has. Almost any sort of group identification/loyalty/patriotism is going to have both tribalism and value-ism mixed up in it. The problem with 'patriotism' is when these different elements get confused. A tribalistic patriotism is fine at the Olympic Games or on a national holiday. Having a flag on your car or your house doesn't bother me in the least. But when it comes to solving 'big picture' problems it can be a serious impediment. There was a recent editorial in 'The Nation' that I thought pointed this out brilliantly. Most of the major issues facing the world today are global in scope: terrorism, a vast array of environmental issues, inequity of wealth, globalization itself. Whatever your particular slant on these issues, they are not ones that can be very effectively addressed by individual nation states acting on their own except in the most short-term, local sense. A value-istic 'patriotism' is what is needed here - in the sense of loving values (freedom of expression, unfettered capitalism, environmental protection, whatever you fancy) rather than just those who, by an accident of birth, live within a particular geographic area.
I love people I know (friends, family, etc.). I love landscapes (the bare rock and lakes of the Canadian shield, the mountains and grasslands of southeastern Arizona, even the dull suburban landscape of the small industrial city where I grew up). I love cultures (e.g. small-town Arizona, north side of Chicago, evolutionary biologists, intellectual Buffy fans, etc.) I'm happy and willing to help other people through collective or individual action and I'm grateful to other people when they do things to help me or others. But to me it doesn't really matter where people are (where they were born, where they live now) but what they do.
On that note I'd like to end this with a little story from November. The local news here had a story on Christmas shopping. A woman said that the events of 9/11 had caused her to place much less value on material things. She didn't really want to a lot of Christmas shopping but felt that she should because it was her patriotic duty. I found this profoundly disturbing.
Side note to Rahael - Just finished 'Dark Lord of Derkholm' - it was great!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My own perspective...o/t -- yuri, 12:23:52 01/14/02 Mon
I agree with you about Tribalism and Value-ism being the critical elements in either patriotism or nationalism (if, as I understand, neither p or n is necessarily all t or v) and that there is most definitely a continuum. My question is, um, lessee,... ideally yes, value-ism should be the means with which we orient ourselves, but that is obviously not very plausible considering the world we live in, so, ahem, "where do we go from here," like, right now? A lot of the time today when people think they're being value-ists(?) the values they think they are representing by affiliating with a certain group/country/corporation are illusions, and are not being enforced. I mean I have some vague directions I plan to go in, but I can't verbalize them or really understand them fully. I'd like to hear your insights.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you -- Rahael, 14:07:57 01/14/02 Mon
For such a thoughtful (and insightful!) response to a contentious topic. I know that on this board, complex issues will get the complex responses they deserves.
I completely agree that 'nationalisms' and 'patriotisms' are multi-faceted phenomemons. We can be nationalist or patriotic in so many different ways. We all have competing loyalties, local, national, supranational.
I'm glad you liked Dark Lord! Of her adult novels, I also liked 'Deep Secret', which plays around with children's rhymes, and myths. Her Chrestomanci series is like Harry Potter, but far better written and more original (imho). But my favourites are 'Fire and Hemlock' 'A Tale of Time City' and the Crown of Dalemark series.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My own perspective...o/t -- Lovesbitch, 11:50:03 01/14/02 Mon
I see nothing wrong with patriotism. In Britain being proud of your country is presented as wrong because of the pc brigade. E.g St George's day is not celebrated unlike Wales, Ireland and Scotlands national days. People have hung flags on St Georges day and had them forcibly removed by the council of there area for being offensive to people from other nations who have joined Britain. Following september 11 there was a debate shown with many Asian people gathered condemning America. An American politition was almost in tears at some of the remarks directed at his country and pleaded for a little compasion. There were many complaints following the show about its insensitive timing. It was not a fair representation of society with different views as claimed. The audience was predominently made up of a minority group simply to satisfy the pc brigade again. Even being competitive isn't allowed any more. At my school anyway we were always told that its the taking part that matters and winning isn't important. That is true in a way but no sporting determination was encouraged at all (which can be healthy if treated in the right way).
There are a lot of football hooligans in Britain who parade the flag around in order to exclude minorities and that has seemed to make polititians shy away from the flag being permitted at all. A politition recently suggested that minorities should be encouraged to feel part of England and learn the language as many refugees have no understanding of English and in some areas there is no English spoken in shops etc and you cannot buy anything from these shops. This was condemned as racist with minorities claiming that they would rather segregate themselves. In Europe there are English people like this. They go to live in Spain and whine about not understanding the language, liking the food etc. This is spoken of as typical of the English and condemned. Yet the polititian was accused of being racist for saying that people coming to England should be part of our society. I also think it is a disgrace if they let the muslims back in the country who have openly pledged alligence to the Taliban and are currently fighting against Britain. (Pledging an alligence to Britain is racist of course). I realise that it is a minority of Muslim people who feel this way but I do still think that a national identity should be encouraged. There are always people who take things to far and may be nationlistic (which should not be tolerated) but why should the majority be affected? Its just like the banning of guns following the Dunblane massacre. What happened to those kids was terrible but taking away law abiding peoples human rights hardly solves the problem. I think banning the flag does more harm than good and encourages more people to be nationalistic. The recent race riots in Oldham have coincited with an increase vote for the British
National Party. There was another debate I saw recently about patriotism and there were many people complaining that if they said they were proud to be English they are treated as racist. The only retort was that we should be proud of all being people rather than dividing us into seperate nations? We are seperate nations and there is nothing wrong with celebrating our differences as well as our similarities. I believe that in America you have to sing the national anthem before school every day? I do think that American's can sometimes be a little overpatriotic but there is nothing wrong with being proud of your coutry and I wish that Britain cannot do the same. The more segregation is engouraged the more we will see the growth of streets with "no white people allowed" signs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Patriotism in Britain -- Rahael, 14:38:06 01/14/02 Mon
Lovesbitch, the selection studio audiences for programmes like Panorama are heavily biased. It is not based on 'random samples', whatever Panorama might say. I should know - I've been asked to 'find' people to appear on such programmes as part of my job. They wanted to have a confrontational debate, and selected an audience which would provide it.
As for immigrants who won't integrate, or speak English properly, I must say that ALL the immigrants, and their children I know, have degrees, often more than one. They speak excellent English, they are erudite, sophisticated, cultured. I myself have read widely, spent three years studying 300 continuous years of British history. You say that many immigrants can't speak English properly, and that a sense of national identity should be inculcated. So how many white British people born in Britain are able to recite Shakespeare? or Shelley? who are conversant with the rich literary, philosophical and historical traditions of their mother country? What is the national identity you refer to? what does it consist of? who belongs to it, and who doesn't? This argument has been raging in Britain for centuries. Does a working class family living in London have the same 'national identity' as an upperclass family living in the countryside? Identity is a much more multi-layered and complex process than that.
Many people just look at me and assume that a) I can't speak English b) am stupid. So no matter how many degrees immigrants accumulate (my father has four) or how learned we are, or how talented, we are not allowed to 'integrate' fully, though we want to. We are then blamed for *not* integrating at the same time.
The British flag is 'permitted', it is not 'illegal'. Recently, it became a fashionable accessory, plastered over t-shirts and the like, part of a movement of 'Cool Britannia'. Buffy wore a top with a British flag on it in 'Enemies'.
But I don't want to engage in a vituperative debate about race and immigration in Britain. Suffice to say, I am utterly grateful for the safe haven that it provided for me. It saved my life, and provided a home for me, in every sense of the word.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Patriotism in Britain -- Lovesbitch, 09:52:46 01/15/02 Tue
My point was that being patriotic shouldn't autamatically be seen as racist. I understand that it's hard for immigrants as there are obviously racist people in Britain. But I don't think its fair to try to stop people feeling proud of England to avoid upsetting minorities. A lot of it is just the government being oversensitive anyway. I watched a Kilroy programe where racial minorities complained that blackbinliners are renamed and blackboards are now whiteboards, nursery rhymes mentioning black sheep are banned and there was once even talk of changing the name of Blackpool to colourpool. That is what I am refering about when I talk about too much political correctness and I don't feel being obsessive about not offending people does much good in the long run. The racial minorities on Kilray were using those examples to say that the government was missing the point and being offensive by using such trivial things. I am not attacking minorities. I just feel that more antaginism is likely if jobs are just aimed at minorities etc (which was a case for a friend of mine recently who phoned about an ad for joining the police and was told it was only for minorities). I'm sorry as if I came across as if it is just a one-way thing. I feel that the people of Britain should also do more to include minorities. I can't say I understand but I'm sure it must be difficult being a minority. And as for your point about all the immagrants you know speaking English and being intelligent thats fine and I am not disputing that. But there are immagrants who cannot speak English. I am not saying they're stupid, I'm saying more effort should be taken to have English classes etc in order to help people feel included.
And talking about the flag perhaps banned was the wrong word. But councils have removed flags in areas because of fearing racism complaints. If you hang the union jack outside your window you are liable to get strange looks.
As for defining patriotism (which is what I am talking about, not nationalism) you can't really. But I do feel people in Britain have a national identity and theres nothing wrong with being proud of where you come from. When England plays football English people come together hoping for good results etc. Provided its not taken to extremes I see patriotism as a good thing. I am sorry that you feel excluded in Britain but I just don't see whats wrong with a feeling of national identity. Football hooligans go abroad with racist chants, shaming Britain (we were threatened with being kicked out of the world cup if we couldn't control the fans). They are nothing to be proud of. But more people are taking patriotism to extremes precicely bacause of the way it's frowned upon. JMHO.
As for yuris point about not seeing any black peope in Britain. It depends what area you go to. There are areas such as Londen and Manchester where there are schools full of nearly all black children so Britain isn't an all white country or anything. The richer areas which tend to attract tourists may not have any black people.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My own perspective...o/t -- yuri, 12:10:03 01/14/02 Mon
I think that your point is one that many people forget. Patriotism and Nationailsm aren't even an option for some people, and here in America, where a huge part of the population is not considered physically or culturally an "average american," well, I can only say I have no idea how hard it would be.
and a little further (farther?) o/t, it was great to read a post about being bi/multi racial because it's so often overlooked. I was slapped in the face (figuratively) by my best friend (she's hapa too) for my neglect of the issue when it's right in front of me. I guess we all need that sometimes. Since then I've been trying to educate myself. It's interesting to hear a little about the issue in britain b/c I've been there once and didn't see a single non-white person, whereas here in the US we have a huge minority population but our history of opression is much more dense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I obviously do, but if I didn't I'd feel same as you. "another ironic commentary on America," yes. -- yuri, 11:47:09 01/14/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> if/then -- yuri, 11:44:00 01/14/02 Mon
IF the FBI detained only arab and muslim (and anyone who may resemble either) people who were actually suspect of the terrorist acts and not any political enemies or people they want to get rid of, THEN I may be fine with the unfair treatement, but only IF they actually took reasonable measures in deciding who they'd detain, and an even bigger __IF__ I felt that the answer to terrorism is to kill and imprison terrorists. Which it's not, there'll always be terrorists and the solution is to find out why they want to terrorize us (and it's not our freedom) and address that.
Also, I humbly ask for some more clarification between Nationalism and Patriotism, because though I have some idea, I feel I have less than other people here seem to. I see nationalism as sort of the attention to economic, military, and global interests of a country, whereas patriotism is more about values and the ideology a country represents.
[> [> [> [> heh -- yuri, 11:24:28 01/14/02 Mon
Well, I agree with and appreciate your points. It's always good to find someone on the other side of the political pendulum who I could have a good talk with. However, after my other posts I don't know how much you'd want to have a talk with me. ;) In any case, never keep your mouth shut. Maybe not the soundest advice, based on my previous experience, but c'est la vie.
[> [> [> first of all -- yuri, 11:17:00 01/14/02 Mon
I'm young yet, and I'm actually moving in six months and fourteen days to live in another country for the first time, because I want to get away from the culture and society that is America. And I do love a lot about it, that is true, there are many many beautiful things that I will want to return to someday. (It is also true that those things I love are mostly the things that are being -- however unsuccesfully -- smothered by mainstream america.) Does that mean I can't criticize it and work to change it? I don't know if I understand your distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism, but both scare me because they aren't, in this situation and many others, based on much more than superstition and fairy tales. "No, it is merely a conscious acceptance of what people have always felt toward the USA dramatically represented." Well the only reason those people feel that way in the first place is because the only major public sources of information in this country see everything through america-colored glasses. It's not because of any real nobility or honor this country retains. When I go into a really shitty ghetto where people's lives are really, well, shitty because of how this country has been set up, and I see american flags on all the doors, I am sad. And when I go into a rich neighborhood of influential people and see flags on all the S.U.V.'s I am scared. They support america b/c it's "the thing to do" and they're gonna support this country's indescretions with their blind faith and their money. Okay i kind of rambled there a bit. oh well. gotta get going.
[> [> [> Ooops, I messed up... (Re to Eric) -- Darby, 13:49:32 01/14/02 Mon
.
..This is what happens when my wife is out of the house...
I was reading the posts to my now-returned wife (ours is a somewhat strange relationship), when I realized that Eric's original post was not what I had "read" to myself a couple of days ago. Gee, it seemed much more reactionary and much less understanding then, and now I can't even recover how I read it that way.
I owe you an apology, Eric - I don't know who I was reacting to in my post response, but it wasn't you.
[> [> [> Continuing the o/t discussion to add another twist to things... -- Me in DE, 01:50:47 01/16/02 Wed
Currently, I am an American living in Germany, and I always find that my sense of national identity changes dramatically when I am abroad. But it was my year in Japan which changed me the most.
I have had an experience that not a lot of white folk ever get to have...really living as a minority - white and female. Because no matter how good my Japanese was, I knew that I would never fit into the society. If I went into a shop with a man who spoke no Japanese, the salespeople would make eye contact with him even as I spoke. Same situation if I was with an Asian female. These are only the tip of the iceberg of these sort of experiences I had then.
So what did it teach me? First, how much prejudgice is only a knee-jerk reaction...it rarely has anything to do with the person, so I learned not to take it personally. But more important, I saw some of the same behaviors in myself. The empathy that I now have changes my attitude towards people. But living with this empathy is hard.
At least in Germany I can fit in. Most people know from my accent that I am not German, and if they are good they know my native language is English, but most often people need to ask where I am from. And I sense the hierarchy of foreigners, with Eastern Europeans slightly higher than non-white minorities here (and I could easily be mistaken for Eastern European since some of my ancestors are from Bohemia and Croatia). And more Germans seem to accept me once they know I am an American.
But at the same time that turns me into "spokesperson" for my country. My background is international relations, so I have more of a sense of context of the events of 9/11 than most Americans, so I try to stay balanced since a lot of Europeans are very critical of our Middle East policies, and often I agree. But I feel compelled to defend our actions at the same time. I didn't know anyone personally who died, but a good friend is a cop at the Pentagon and had to spend weeks working 12 hour days helping pull body parts out of the building, etc.
And being abroad pulls me back to my culture strongly. I've (until now) been a casual Buffy fan, but watching S5 here (and in German no less) has gotten me addicted. I now find Tom Green funny, and am desperate to watch the NFL playoffs this weekend, but can't find a sportsbar that will have the Chicago game on Saturday night (early Sunday morning here).
So the most important thing for me is to be aware of your cultural identity, to realize what is you-you, what is you-your national identity, you-your cultural identity, your identity as a student, worker, member of a family, whatever. When you see these layers, only then can you avoid knee-jerk reactions and really think through why a flag here or there bothers or pleases you.
Returning to my reguarly scheduled work avoidance...
Meg
[> [> [> [> Re: Continuing the o/t discussion to add another twist to things... -- matching mole, 13:14:53 01/16/02 Wed
Thanks for your comments, Meg. I don't know if anyone else is still reading this far down the page but I found what you had to say pretty interesting.
I agree that racial attitudes can be pretty subtle to the point of being undetectable if you're not on the receiving end. Living on the south side of Chicago for four years when I was in graduate school really opened my eyes. It's pretty easy to tell yourself you don't have any racial/national/whatever biases when most of encounters with other people are with people who are more or less like you. When that's not the case it's a whole different story.
Your statement about becoming more interested in your own culture was also familiar. When I first moved to the U.S. from Canada I started following the NHL (hockey) although in general I have no interest in spectator sports.
BTW Tom Green is a Canadian (not that I'm particularly proud of that or anything). My knowledge of Tom Green is derived solely from seeing movie ads on TV and the chip in my head (as in all Canadians) that keeps us informed every Canadian who makes it big in the US.
matching mole aka kevin
[> [> Whew, I am whooped. I wanted to say thank you to everyone, obviously I like doing this. be back soon -- yuri, 12:29:35 01/14/02 Mon
Look at Some Allusions/Symbolism of 'Gone' Part One Spoilers -- Age, 20:00:18 01/11/02 Fri
This posting is a quick look at some of the symbolism/allusions of the episode 'Gone.' Spoilers for season 5, 6 to 'Gone.' And for 'A Christmas Carol', 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears' and 'The Star.'
To start with there seem to be three allusions in the episode.
The first, and foremost is perhaps a tongue-in-cheek allusion to Jane Taylor's 'The Star' poem which is familiar to most of us as one of the first pieces of verse we learn as kids. It is not then just coincidental that the motifs of the star(which runs visually through the episode) and diamond are associated with childhood as Buffy's stint in heaven, her being that little star, or, alternatively, being the ultimate basement kid in heaven's den or video arcade, so to speak, was meant to show how she hadn't made or didn't want to make the transition from adolescence to adulthood. The motif of the star, of course, is also both a joke(as Buffy is the title star of the show) and part of the theme of being too visible as the object of so much attention.
Twinkle, twinkle little star,
How I wonder what you are,
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.
When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.
Then the traveller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark;
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.
In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my windows peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky.
As your bright and tiny spark,
Lights the traveller in the dark,
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.
While Taylor makes a distinction between the star and the sun, no such distinction exists in the reality of science, and it is to this reality, with the putting away of childhood magical thinking as symbolized by taking away of Willow's magic items that this episode is about. But, as Buffy's antics clearly show, the ep is not about turning ones back fully on the child's perspective in which the sun and the star are different: as adults we know full well not to look into the full strength of the sun's rays during the day but at night we still can see the stars and wonder: we still retain the eye of the child, the starry eye, but with an adult's perspective. I hasten to add here that while the theme of this season is 'Oh, grow up,' the grown-up writers, in their thirties and forties, are still having a lot of fun dishing up to us the comic book villains etc. Invisible themselves, behind the text, are a few writers who, I imagine, can't help adding a little wink, a little play on the perspective of being an adult. But, for the intent of the symbolism in this episode, the star and the sun are the same, or at least that's the impression I got. For me, Buffy's vacation from herself, her death and resurrection is reiterated in symbolic form through the whole episode from the time on the clock(7:30 counting down...) to the sun/star in heaven motif of the wall mirror in Buffy's house, on the 'eye' balls Buffy plays with, on the woman's hat, on the housing of the gun, in the video arcade; plus the reference to ghost etc and Buffy's playful(thus child-like) antics when invisible and fading away to nothing; even Willow's being held hostage to her own pull of adolescence is symbolically portrayed. This episode reiterates the events of the recent past in symbolic form as Willow and Buffy begin the movement forward in their lives.
The sun and the star are the same: it reinforces the movement forward(well backwards, in the sense that Willow and Buffy rediscover their selves beyond their denial to make the first step) to scientific thinking from the magical thinking usually associated with the sun, as in the Sunnydale way of doing things. Buffy's stint in heaven was in part a denial of the rest of her life; she was on vacation, so to speak. In the ep, the sun/star image is behind Buffy in her house; on her head, so to speak as personnified by the woman in the park; on the housing holding the diamond in the invisibility gun, unseen by Buffy until the end when not only does it, and Buffy's problem, become visible, but is taken in hand by Willow. This is symbolic of the two characters having taken first steps in wrestling, so to speak, with their problems; and of Willow's resurrection spell being the first hard step in taking from Buffy her state of being perfectly dead, ie taking away the diamond image which is part of the gun.
In an earlier posting I suggested that the diamond the three villains steal represents Buffy in her heavenly hard, dead, perfect state. I suggested that the beginning scene in the museum symbolically represented the resurrection spell of 'Bargaining.' I believe this is so, but I missed a couple of points. Firstly, to understand that scene and the contents of 'Gone' better, one has to emphasize the symbolism of the three villains. The museum scene symbolically and the resurrection spell literally brought Buffy physically back to life, but the motivation was to bring her back; it was backwards looking to the past as the Scooboes didn't want to face forward in their lives. This is the symbolic meaning of the three villains taking the diamond: the resurrection spell came about due to the pull of adolescence.
(Incidentally the idea of pushing and pulling of forces is expressed symbolically in 'Gone' firstly in the Spike/Doris dichotomy(they even come into the Summers' house in opposite doors) and then in the accident with the gun that renders Buffy invisible as the two villains are pulling and pushing on the gun to symbolize the forces within Buffy herself. The tug of wars within Buffy are of course between life and death, denial and authentic self, adolescence and adulthood.)
While 'Bargaining' is alluded to in the forest imagery of the Goldilocks and the three bears motif, to be discussed later, there is a distinct contrast between the two events to get Buffy's form back: in 'Bargaining' it was an event based on denial and magic; while in 'Gone' Buffy's resurrection, so to speak, is due to the gang's putting in an adult effort as gumshoes, based on working through the problem rather than circumventing it with magic/magical thinking. The difference also between the two is that Buffy has had half a season to work through her suicidal tendencies, and that in this episode she experiences the effects of her absence on others. She sees others, sees the consequences of her fading to nothing. On the one hand she learns that she still can have fun, find a balance between slaying and having a life(as the 'kill' Doris scene represents; all work and no play makes Doris/Buffy a dull, non existent girl.) This frees her to see that on the other hand she can still and must carry out adult responsibilities. If 'Bargaining' was the physical resurrection, 'Gone' is the stirring of Buffy's emotional resurrection, the first step, but as the final scene and Spike's references to Goldilocks and the woods show, there's a long way to go.
One important aspect of the diamond I missed is that, well, it's invisible. We see only the light reflected off its hard surface. This is akin to Buffy's having put on a front, or, in terms of T.S. Eliot, creating a face to meet the faces that you meet. It is an icy exterior, much like the main character in Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol,' the third allusion in the ep to be discussed later. In many respects Buffy has remained invisible, as has her problem/the villains, with her friends seeing only the light they have shone on her reflected back to them. It is not then just a coincidence, but a stroke of genius, that the truth comes out about her having been in heaven, not visually, as with reflected light, but with an auditory metaphor in 'Once More with Feeling.' For much of the season Buffy's pull backwards in her life, as symbolized by the three villains, characters from highschool days, have remained invisible to her; it is not until this episode that the invisiblity is made manifest as a way of Buffy bringing her feelings to consciousness. This aspect of the diamond, transferred to Buffy comes in this ep because she's no longer exactly the diamond. It is the invisibility that gets transferred to her, the essence without the hard veneer, as the changing into pudding reinforces. The transfer, the pudding and the resolution of the ep itself point to movement on Buffy's part. Due to her circumstances being different, and possibly having gotten some perspective on her mum's death over these few months, Buffy is ready to come back to the world of the living. The diamond didn't exactly change to a dewdrop, as Rahael's poem suggested in an earlier thread, it became pudding. But, the transformation in terms of dissolution is the same: it became more of a liquid. I suggest that the pudding image is used to show that Buffy still isn't out of the woods(to mix a metaphor, although Goldilocks ate porridge, not pudding.) She has a way to go before her life clears enough to be represented by a dewdrop, if ever.
Something I'd like to add in passing regarding the diamond image is the very intriguing postings I've read on this board about the use of light around Buffy: the haloes etc. The question I have, and one that someone else might be able to answer, is how the light imagery ties in: is the light emanating from Buffy as an angelic image or are we seeing a veneer as with a diamond with the light coming from outside her?
One thing I also noticed watching the ep is that the Buddha statue which has had centre spot on the counter of the Magic Shop has been moved to the side. This statue ties in with the religious imagery of the light, haloes; I wonder if this is deliberate in the sense that the Buddha statue, while symbolizing change, truth and compassion, also, in its static form, symbolizes the heaven state of nirvana; and that by moving the statue, this symbolizes Buffy's coming back to life? Any ideas?
Okay, I think I'll move onto the second allusion: Goldilocks and the three bears.
When Spike comes into the kitchen he says that he was just in Buffy's neck of the woods; he then refers to her as Goldilocks, with the result that Buffy cuts her hair, something that generally happens as we get older, the hair line gets shorter to create a more grown up look. This hair cutting scene and Buffy's comments in the hairdressers are complex: on the one hand there's a desire to be different, a movement way from the static image of the diamond or of the child image of the Goldilocks character; but there's also the desire not to be seen, to run away, to get back to that heavenly stint without responsibilities: to get away from being the visible star, to being the one in heaven, the ghost, the angel etc. This pull in two directions may account for the other aspect of the hair cutting: the expression of pain in self mutilation.
The sense of movement and the allusion to the woods tie in with Tara. The woods image is an allusion perhaps to the scene in 'Bargaining' where it is Tara's light that guides Willow and Xander out of the forest. This also may tie in with Tara's role in the dream from 'Restless' as she acts as guide to Buffy, telling her she doesn't know what she is, what's to come as Buffy now makes the movement to get on with her life. This tie to Tara as a character with a more healthy attitude towards life comes in the form of the box that Buffy promises to give to Tara: not only do we have Willow and Buffy symbolized as two crystals in that box(note Buffy as diamond and Willow's use of crystals in her magic) but we have those crystals put away and moving towards Tara, the symbol of a healthier way of living. Also, Buffy's movement in bringing the box to Tara is symbolic of making that connection, of movement in her life. In the scene in 'Bargaining' Tara helps Willow and Xander find their way out; but since this, since the discovery of Willow's magic problem, Tara has had to let Willow find her own way, as Giles did for Buffy. It'll be interesting to see what role Tara will play in the second half of the season. If Tara does represent a healthier way of life, and if Willow and Buffy continue their movement, then as with the three villains transferring their invisibility to Buffy, at some point, there should be a symbolic act in which Tara is used to show Buffy's and Willow's changed attitude. It'll be interesting to see how this is done, if it happens..
The story of Goldilocks and the three bears is probably well known to us. The story of the girl who goes into the metaphor for uncertainity about identity('How I wonder what you are') and confusion, the woods, and comes to a house whose occupants are absent, hence, for our purposes invisible like the three bears of this season: the three villains. It seems that at the beginning of this episode, like Goldilocks, Buffy is still not ready to face life's challenges, and runs away. Earlier in the season, the three villains have played the role of the three bears in that, like the trials of Goldilocks as she attempts to discover what is just right for her, the three villains set challenges for Buffy, and she tries them on. But, these several months have passed, and while Buffy does run away, the situation is much different from her dive off of the tower or even her resurrection in 'Bargaining.' Buffy may be taking a holiday from herself similar to heaven, but it is not the same: she's still alive, and able to see things differently, and I might add, work out a bit of repressed anger to boot with her playful antics that are rebellious and border on being mean spirited. As I mentioned above, unlike being in heaven, she is able to see the consequences of her actions, and not be content with the illusion, the myth, that her family is all okay. She may start off as Goldilocks, but it is Buffy who re-materializes.
End Part One
Age.
[> Re: Look at Some Allusions/Symbolism of 'Gone' Part Two Spoilers -- Age, 20:34:31 01/11/02 Fri
I think I'll move onto the last allusion, 'A Christmas Carol' before doing a kind of round up of the notes I took while watching the episode for a second time.
Yet again, 'A Christmas Carol' by Charles Dickens should be very familiar to us all, if not in written form, in the form of the movies we see each yuletide. I have read the short novel and seen the Allistair Sim version of the film, and find the main difference between the two is that the book emphasizes social engagement; while the film fleshes out the more psychological aspects of the tale. Scrooge is basically a decent and warm hearted man who is shunned by his father(note the role of fathers in 'Buffy' and 'Angel') because his mother died giving life to him. The only contact with his family comes in the form of his beloved sister who in turn dies giving birth to her son. At this point, the very traumatised Ebeneezer Scrooge re-creates the pattern of his father's anger against the son of his sister, and hides himself from the world that took away his emotional point of contact, and sets up this icy exterior, based on aquisition of money(hence stability, because people leave you), an icy exterior, like say a diamond. The plot involves Ebeneezer in the latter years of his dead, arrested life, coming to have several dreams in which spirits, representing his authentic self, show how cold and dead he's become, and what he truly is behind the icy front he has erected. Incidentally it is not a case of the spirits changing Scrooge at all; they are a manifestation of his changing already. The dichotomy between the cold exterior of winter and the warmth of Christmas cheer addressed to Scrooge is symbolic of the growing push and pull inside Scrooge, like Buffy's push and pull within, as his authentic self begins to stir again, awakened by the condition of Tiny Tim, who, with his physical ailment, is also a symbol of the emotionally crippled boy that Scrooge had become, but also the hope of regaining his authentic self in the attitude that Tiny Tim portrays.
Just like 'Buffy' 'A Christmas Carol' is symbolic from start to finish, and just like this 'Buffy' episode, it shows a person coming back to life, to his emotional life. So, what are the parallels and why did I mention it: well, actually there's only a brief reference to the work in the scene where invisible Buffy knocks the hat off the woman, a symbolic scene where Buffy-substitute with her star/heaven cap on, is visited by the ghost of fashion past, and, well, when it's knocked off, runs away like Goldilocks. All the people that Buffy plays with are aspects of herself: the heavenly hat Goldilocks; the policeman, ie her patrolling at night; and the social worker who is out of balance: the person who makes hasty conclusions, and therefore hasn't learned to find balance in her life as the print out suggests about Buffy. Note this balance in Buffy's life, and the need for it will be portrayed at the end of the episode on the shirts of the three villains. The pictures on the shirts in this episode do seem to have meaning: at the beginning of the ep Buffy's wearing a shirt with a large black predatory cat on it; this cat image is repeated on the shirt of one of the three villains at the end of the ep. In fact in the arcade, when we finally see the three, Jonathon on the right is wearing a shirt that has the word 'angel' on it; while what's his face, Tucker's brother, is wearing the shirt with the cat image; and Warren, in the middle, is wearing a grey sweater with dividing stripes of black and a little white. These three symbolize the need in Buffy to get some balance between her angelic qualities, her animal nature and her world of black and white and grey. I might add that Buffy's preoccupation last year with the slayer being only a killer and not wanting to take human life are symbolically recreated through the social worker scene and through Jonathon's desire not to kill Buffy: it is Jonathon who is wearing the 'angel' shirt. It seems that all the pressures that Buffy has been under are being expressed as she takes a holiday from them. Getting back to the parallels. Both Ebeneezer and Buffy are suffering because of a loss of a dear family member. The influence of Joyce's death on Buffy's transition to adulthood cannot be emphasized enough. The loss sent both of them into an emotionally dead state, akin, one might add for both of them to the image of a diamond. In both works, the main characters are visited by ghosts of themselves: in a dream, the ghosts of his authentic self come to Scrooge, but this is almost literal in Buffy's case as she does the haunting and is referred to as a ghost by herself and Spike. The parallels are not exact, of course, as Eb shakes off his cruel outer persona once and for all in a magnificent epiphany; while Buffy seems to have made one step towards living again. While the step is a huge one, choosing life over death, it's not accompanied by the knee slapping, crazy joy of freedom that Scrooge experiences because as I said above Buffy is not out of the woods yet, and her life isn't one of joy: she's the slayer.
One more thing, the parallel between the two works is seen also in the return of Buffy and Willow to themselves. Buffy was originally brought back using magic(Willow's attempt to mask her inadequacies.) But Willow returns to her roots, to her wonderfully intelligent and diligent self, to something of her past in order to move forward. In meeting up with the three villains, this movement backwards to go forwards is symbolized. This is what Scrooge does to himself. The movement is not forward in his life, but backwards as he uncovers something he hid years before. Once the authentic self is revealed, then he can incorporate it into his new life. It's intriguing, but Scrooge would no longer be the young naive so easily breakable person of the past; his years of self imposed discipline would give him a business acumen and a skill to bring his new(old) outlook the perspective it requires. Again there is the idea I mentioned above of bringing the child's eye(perhaps part of the religious light theme) to the adult world, but with an adult's perspective also. In this way, Buffy's and Willow's vacation from themselves could be interpreted as a step in their developement, one that will make them stronger.
Okay, this is long; so I'll just go through my notes and see if there's anything else.
Okay, there's an interesting contrast between the form of the diamond and Willow's state as Buffy refers to her friend's condition as drowning.The contrast is between the static form and the formlessness of the water. One has too much structure and the other has little or no structure.
There is also the flame/lighter motif that is part of the ep too: Buffy insists that even the candles too must be put away, but Spike's lighter mysteriously gets put in Buffy's pocket, and then back to Spike. It is of course symbolic. Had the lighter stayed in the box this would have meant the end of Buffy's brief encounter with the flame of passion. Clearly, that's not happening.
The pylon that is between Anya and Xander may be a symbol of their division, and in its turning to pudding, a foreshadowing of their plans getting really icky and sticky. It's a nice touch, if not a pleasurable tactile one.
Ah, a major aspect of the ep is the identification between Buffy's invisible state and the metaphorical aspect of vampires as perpetual teenagers. When Buffy is talking about being outside of rules and life, Spike reminds her it's like being dead. It is this same desire, this same rebellion against life(and death) that the vampires represent. Ironically it is a vampire(still?), Spike, who first tells her to grow up because he wants all of her; and this is followed by the lessons of those closest to her: Dawn's being freaked out and Xander's message about pudding. It's intriguing to note in passing that Buffy's state of invisibility parallels the vampire's inability to reflect in a mirror; however, unlike the vampires, who truly are dead, she first is able to let go of herself, see others and then see herself, as she gets made visible again. This is the point of the episode: while she's in a state akin to vampires, akin to being dead in heaven, she's not. She acts like an adolescent, but there is a struggle within her already between life and death, denial and authentic self, between adolescenece and adulthood. The three villains, invisible throughout the first half of the season, have now been exposed for the child nemeseseseses that they are, and Buffy has opened to herself and others.
It's intriguing that when I was watching the three villains I thought to myself: such talent, such a waste of life. I think this was meant to apply to Willow, and one of the reasons why she ends up holding the invisibility gun. Relying so much on magic, she has wasted her natural talents. She may be exhausted at the end of the day, but welcome to the real world of adults, a world where the real magic, imagination, is still very much needed, but is coupled with perseverence and discipline and exhaustion. Of course Willow's re-instating Buffy in the video arcade, the enduring symbol of the perpetual adolescent, is a reiteration of her bringing Buffy out of heaven, out of death's video arcade so to speak. But, this time it's done authentically, with Buffy ready to come back to life, so to speak. Unlike the other kids, who think the place is haunted, ie symbolically, Willow and Buffy as just ghosts of themselves, the two stroll out, weary, but alive. No longer are the ghosts of themselves hovering around them.
What then is 'Gone' in this episode. Pehaps it's Buffy's hard exterior as she and Willow sit down to have a real discussion about themselves. No longer putting up a front to her friend, she admits how she would have felt only an episode or so ago. Gone is the tendency towards death as Buffy has an emotional reaction to the possibility of dissolution. Gone is the first half of the season which Buffy needed to get to this point, with the second half being the slow steps towards finding some balance and reconnection in her life.
Age.
[> [> and once again, Age does the KABOOMAGE. Kudos! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 21:19:09 01/11/02 Fri
Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- OnM, 20:47:53 01/11/02 Fri
*******
All humankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.
............ Arabian Proverb
*******
The man is free, we say, who exists for his own sake and not for another's.
............ Aristotle
*******
Necessity is blind until it becomes conscious. Freedom is the consciousness of necessity.
............ Karl Marx
*******
To be free is to have achieved your life.
............ Tennessee Williams
*******
I am a child of the modern age, and I make no apologies for that. I regularly diss individuals who moan and groan about the 'good old days'. Good old days? You mean the ones where famine, disease, ignorance and general suffering covered pretty much the entire planet instead of just a portion of it? No, thank you. Just the other day some fellow stopped in the store and was lugging this ancient (over 30 year old) tape deck, wanting to get it repaired. I asked him how much he was willing to spend, and how many tapes he had in his collection. He turned out to be one of the most difficult types of service customers you can run into if you're in my trade-- the guy who becomes sentimentally attached to his equipment, and I don't mean his penis, for which there might be a good reason for said attachment.
A thirty year old tape deck would be about 120 years old in people years. Unless it's a true collectible item, which is very rare, it's almost always best to say a short prayer and give the poor thing a decent burial somewhere, or give it away for 2 bucks at a yard sale so some kid can have a few days of fun tinkering with the old relic. But no, that's not gonna be this guy. He loves his machine, 'they don't build them like this anymore', he's willing to fork over significant bucks, even several hundred, to make it go again. I sigh inwardly, and try to stop visualizing myself smacking him upside the head ('cos it's unprofessional, ya know).
"You understand", I tell him slowly and carefully, making sure he does, "that I could spend all afternoon or even all day working on this, and it could turn out to need some unavailable part and end up no better than it started, but with you two hundred dollars poorer?" There is some pause, but I sense the answer already. I try one last entreaty as the pause stretches a few more seconds: "You know, we do get these machines in from time to time as trades, or people just want to get rid of them and donate them to us. Sometimes they still work, we clean them up a little bit, lube the mechanism, they work OK. You could buy one of those for maybe $100 - $150 or so. Much newer, usually. Better performance."
Nope. He loves his baby. Got to give it a shot, so I check it in, knowing that rationality just isn't an option for some individuals. He starts talking as I type pertinent stats into the shop computer, telling me it's just like old cars. The new cars just aren't built like the old ones, it's the same thing. "And thank heavens for that," say I, without missing a beat. He's taken aback, which was my intention, as I continue. "Big, poorly handling, dangerous, gas-guzzling, air-polluting boats-on-wheels. That's what those old cars were. Good riddance to 'em."
The old guy would be apoplectic by now if he wasn't still in shock. "You don't really believe that!" he finally gets out. "Of course I do", I reply. "It's absolutely true. I may not be an automotive technician, but I still understand the basic technology involved. Cars made within the last ten years or so are vastly superior to anything built before, in almost every important regard." I finish checking in his antique, hand him a claim check. "I'll see what I can do with your amp. No promises, OK?"
"OK". He seems to want to say something, but probably figures I'm a lost cause, too young to understand the importance of solidity over mere performance. "You'll call me?" I nod. "Yep. Pretty backed up at the moment, be at least two weeks. I'll call." He heads out the door as I lug his convictions through the door and park it on a shelf.
Now, technology is interesting, I like it and all, but I make it a point not to enslave myself to it. The carpenter must wield the hammer, not the other way around, or pain ensues. I'm very certainly not a Luddite, I just try to chart a middle path. I don't throw out an old machine just because it stops working, but I almost always clearly recognize the point where frugality meets futility, and I don't agonize over it, I move on. The same could be said of the requirement to balance the need for community with the need for solitude. Your humble movie-man may not be an overly social person, but I classify myself as non-social rather than anti-social. I don't dislike other people per se, but neither do I harbor an overwhelming desire to constantly surround myself with the presence of others. In fact, my overall mental health is only obtained by keeping a certain portion of the day to myself. Doing so allows me to think more clearly, stay focussed, avoid distractions. This column, for example, wouldn't exist at all if my entire day was filled with the normal level of brain chaos that typifies the consumer electronics trade. I have great admiration for all of you ATPosterholics who somehow manage to present literate commentary despite the demands of long-workday jobs and/or the parenthood thang. 'Tis not for me, that I do see.
Embracing the joys of quiet contemplation notwithstanding, my personal wish for backing away from the world has never gone anywhere nearly as far as that of the protagionist of this week's Classic Movie, Vagabond, also known by the original French title, Sans toit ni loi , which literally translated into English means 'without roof or rule'. Directed by Agnès Varda, this is a haunting and unforgettable story of a young female drifter who wanders the countryside, beholden to no one and to nothing, totally free... and as astutely observed by one man she meets during her travels, totally alone.
Mona (Sandrine Bonnaire) appears to want it that way, but we wonder if she would still set a course along the same random roads and byways if she had carried the foreknowledge that by winter's end her body would be found frozen, lying in a ditch, a puzzle to the local police and townspeople. Who is this woman? What was she searching for? Was she searching for anything? Rest assured that the above paragraph does not constitute a spoiler, for the film opens with a wide shot over a bleak, cold and windswept field somewhere in France in the later 20th Century. As the camera slowly pulls in to a narrower and narrower area of view, we see a farm worker walking through the field, gathering small sticks and branches as he goes. He stops suddenly in his tracks, drops the armful of branches, and runs away, shouting for help. As he leaves the frame, we see Mona's body, blue and lifeless, lying awkwardly on the frozen soil. What follows as the film unfolds appears to be a documentary, as the voice of the director appears, offering to answer what we all are wondering, but this is not the case. There is no actual answer to the enigma that this moment in time embraces, only the recollection of the passage of some other moments as seen by the people Mona encounters, and how they view her, and the lonely/free existence she embodies.
Is it possible to be truly free? The answer to that question is no clearer than the window into Mona's motivations, and director Varda deliberately leaves any conclusions up to the audience, offering an unsparing look at her character's simple joys and sorrows. At some points Mona seems little more than an animal, in the sense that she exists only in or for the moment, as opposed to living in a stream of time with past and future at least partially defined, in the way we normally think of humans living. She interacts with the people she meets in various ways, but after several such encounters we are left to debate whether the responses shown are genuinely hers, or solely a reflection of the other individuals' personality. At other times a glimmer of a warmer, more conventional humanity breaks through Mona's studiously detached demeanor, and acts to buffer what tends to be our instinctive aversions to her odd, even bizarre behavior. This balance is important, because since we already know what the eventual fate of this sad, strange but somehow involving woman will be, it is essential that we come to feel her life as she does, see the world as she does, and albeit briefly, inhabit her soul. That Vagabond succeeds perfectly in this mission is never more clearly demonstrated than when at film's end, we have returned in full circle to where it first began, and still find ourselves shocked and dismayed with equal intensity. What is true freedom? Does such a thing really even exist, and if it does, can it only exist in some momentary or fleeting mental state where the soul stands alone? The answer is as different as the degrees of loneliness that envelop our mortal existence, where solitude is pain for some and pleasure for others.
"It's about inspiration. Not the idea, but the moment before the idea, when it's total. When it blossoms in your mind, and connects to everything. It's about the thoughts and experiences that we don't have a word for."
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technically, it is always warm and welcoming here:
Vagabond is available on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database. The review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released in 1985, with running time of 1 hour and 45 minutes, and is presented in French with English subtitles in the U.S. release. The photography, with all of it's muted yet emotionally expressive European-color-palette-ness was by Patrick Blossier. The laserdisc copy I own presented the film in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, I do not know for certain if this was the intended one or not. (Many European films are shot in the very moderately widescreen 1.66:1 ratio). The equally striking and expressive musical score was created by Joanna Bruzdowicz. Editing was by Agnès Varda and Patricia Mazuy. Varda also wrote the screenplay.
Cast overview:
Sandrine Bonnaire .... Mona
Macha Meril .... Madame Landier
Stephane Freiss .... Jean-Pierre
Laurence Cortadellas .... Elaine
Marthe Jarnias .... Tante Lydie
Yolande Moreau .... Yolande
Joel Fosse .... Paulo
*******
Miscellaneous and whatnot:
Several readers have requested that I do a review of Lord of the Rings, and so I thought I'd mention that since the seasonal craziness of my day-job has now quieted somewhat, it is my sincere hope to finally get out to see this movie in the next week or two, hopefully this coming Wednesday. If so, I plan on doing the review of same for the February 1st 2002 column, which will also be the first anniversary of 'Classic Movie of the Week'.
(Heavens to Murgatroyd, an entire year I've been doing this schtick, almost-- I can't hardly believe it! All them there words and stuff, sheesh!!)
Normally it is a requirement for the main movie under discussion to not be in current release, comments-in-passing about suchly are one of the things that the 'misc' section is for, not the main column, but who am I to deny my loyal fans? (all 3 or 4 of them). One of the many advantages of working for the kindly and flexible Masquerade web-publishing empire!
In other news, as already mentioned by Rob in his post earlier this week, the countdown to Season 1 Buffy DVD's for North American release is in it's final week. In addition, the issuance of a six-disc set of Season 2 has been announced for sometime in May or June of this year, thus proving me to be accurate (for once) with my previous every-six-month-ish timetable guess. Does this mean Season 3 will be out before December 2002? Good chance, say I, but of course we will see. If the pattern takes hold, this means that we should be the whole way up to Season 6 by Winter of 2003, which would be, well, swell!
If you are a movie lover and/or big-time Buffy fan, but still haven't taken the plunge into the wonderful world of DVD, you'll never get a better excuse than this! If you have any unanswered technical questions prior to getting digitally wired, I will be glad to attempt the dispensement of some useful buying advice re: things that are important and things that are not, reasonable prices to pay, features, etc. and so on, if you e-mail me. Or, if you already have a player, but you don't believe things are looking or sounding as they should, then likewise quest away. The address is the same as it's always been:
objectsinmirror@mindspring.com.
This way, I can avoid filling up the board with excessive OT technodrivel and still be useful to my fellow boarders. Comments and questions about movies, 'classic' and otherwise Buffy-theme-resonant, are always welcome, and should be posted at ATPo, as usual.
(Pausing for a moment of space, contemplatively. Breathe in.... breathe out... breathe in... breathe out... )
( ahhhhhhhh...... momentary balance... now moving on... )
As the days now slowly grow longer, and leave me looking forward to spring, we now spring forward to the...
*******
Question(s) of the Week:
Have you ever traveled 'on the road' by yourself? How old were you at the time, and what was the experience like? If you have never done this, have you ever had the desire to do so? What would be your expectations? Tell us your stories, your community eagerly awaits!
Thus, as always, post 'em if you've got 'em, and see you next week.
Take care. Occasionally, be moving...
*******
[> Re: Question of the Week -- Wisewoman, 22:45:04 01/11/02 Fri
By "on the road" do you mean hitching, or driving? Never hitched, but I did undertake to deliver the car of my acting professor from Vancouver to New York one spring, in the late 70's or early 80's. I was in my 20's. The car was a Volkswagen Rabbit and had no radio. I could have gone insane. I took a route through the US and starting talking loudly to myself somewhere in the Dakotas. One day I did 900 miles before I finally stopped and slept in the car. In the end, I went to Toronto first, because it was closer, and I couldn't stand being by myself anymore. I picked up a friend in Toronto and she went with me the rest of the way, and we took the train back.
Other things I remember...the never-ending highway signs for the Wall Drugstore, and the fact that, until I came upon it, I didn't realize that the bizarre Devil's Tower from Close Encounters of the Third Kind really existed. Scared the **** outta me. I came round a bend at about twilight one night, and there it was...yikes!
O/T: Just watched Jack Nicholson in Sean Penn's "The Pledge." Amazing performance, and definitely a movie worth the time.
;o)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- Liz, 00:26:38 01/12/02 Sat
Ye Gods. And I had been skipping the "movie of the week" threads because I thought they couldn't possibly be interesting. Now I'll have to go find them in the archives.
I have driven cross country. I was supposed to go for the summer but I ended up only going for a month and a bit. I slept in my car and generally hit museums, national parks, graveyards, and random rivers while on my way to Colorado to see a friend. Then I went south for the sole purpose of seeing the grand canyon (which I ended up skipping) and went north to Washington to see my uncle. Then a mad dash across route 90 to try to get back to New York in three days (which I STILL say is possible if only my transmission hadn't died.)
I also remember those Wall Drugstore signs. I think the entirity of North Dakota was plastered with them. (Or is it South Dakota?) The place sounds frightening.
I loved the trip. I'd not slept better before or since. It felt strangely free because I was never in any particular place. I was traveling, which seemed to set me in a different space than the real places I passed through. Since I've never really been at home anywhere, this was oddly nice.
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- LadyStarlight, 06:52:39 01/12/02 Sat
I drove the Alaska Highway in February of 1992. I was offered a job in Whitehorse so I packed up my truck and drove from Vegreville, Alberta to Whitehorse, Yukon. It was an interesting drive (rounding a blind curve and finding a moose on the road, anyone?) I don't actually remember a whole bunch of the drive now, but it marked the transition from 'adolescent' to 'adult' in my head. (even though I was armed with Mom's credit card to pay for stuff.)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- Humanitas, 08:17:40 01/12/02 Sat
I was fortunate enough to graduate from college without the usual burden of debt that accompanies such an achievement. I took advantage of this freedom to travel for fully five years, mostly up and down the East Coast, working as a performer at various Renaissance Festivals. My theory was that I didn't want to wake up one day and discover that I was 60 years old, and had never done the things I'd dreamed of doing. I didn't want to wonder if I could have made it.
So I traveled. I got to see a lot of different places, meet a lot of nifty people, and make a lot of folks laugh along the way. And I even got paid for the privilidge! I never made very much money, but I was able to get by, and I had a great time.
Hmmm. As I write this, I notice that nostalgia is already taking its toll on my memories. I know that there were hard times, when I wasn't sure where the next meal would come from, but somehow those times have faded, for the most part.
Anyway, I surely do not regret a moment of my time on the road, but neither do I regret my decision to settle down in one place. I miss travelling, I miss the life, but I have to admit that I'm a lot more comfortable now.
Besides, it's tough to watch BtVS in a tent! ;)
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- Isabel, 12:49:33 01/13/02 Sun
Just this last October I drove to the Outer Banks (N.C) to see my Dad. It was the first time I had ever done a really long car trip by myself. I'm 35 and I think a trip of 200 miles alone is ok.
I'll admit I was a little scared to be on the road by myself, but I went anyway. I bought a cell phone, mapped out the route, got the brakes fixed and hit the road. I was surprised that it was so much fun. I am such a Northerner that I had to pull the car over in N.C. to take a picture of a cotton field. On the way home the neatest thing was the 18 mile long Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel. (OMG! I'm never driving the Beltway again!)
BTW, I saw LoTR two days ago and haven't stopped saying "Wow!"
[> WARNING: this is a boring post -- Shaglio, 06:36:53 01/14/02 Mon
I have never travelled the road by myself for a couple reasons:
1) I get carsick, which would make for an extremely unpleasant journey
2) I don't like being alone. I get bored and depressed when I'm alone and need to have friends around me to feel comfortable. (I know, I have issues. I'm still working on them as we speak).
3) This is where all my friends, family, and things I like are. I wouldn't mind travelling somewhere for a weekend to see sights and such, but it would be about the sights themselves, not the jouney to those sights, that would be important to me. And in the end I would want to come back to the one place I truly love: New England. Besides, it would be hard to catch the Bruins, Patriots, and Red Sox games while I was on the road. I may be a slave to my sports teams, but at least I'm man enough to admit it!
So there you have it. Not a very entertaining response, but a response nonetheless. Now I must get back to work.
[> [> It's not boring... it's just reality! ... ;) -- OnM, 07:43:18 01/14/02 Mon
Thanks, I enjoyed it!
[> Not exactly road trips -- matching mole, 08:50:31 01/14/02 Mon
in the sense of travelling for the sake of travelling but I have made several very long car trips by myself, mostly between Illinois and Arizona. The most recent of these was just over a year ago when we were moving. I drove myself, two of our three cats, a bunch of my succulents (plants) that were too large to mail easily, and a bunch of fruit flies (my wife's research stocks) from Phoenix to Urbana in three days. The driving was fine but moving all the organisms in and out of the car every day was a bit of a pain (I couldn't leave anything in the car overnight because of cold temperatures).
For about a year and a half in the mid-nineties I was commuting every couple of weeks between Phoenix and Riverside, CA (about 500 km). There is a stretch of Interstate 10 in the middle of California (between Desert Center and Indio) where there is 50 miles or more of nothing - no human construction of any kind. At this point I could not get any U.S. radio at all in my car (no tape deck or CD player) and so I usually listened to Mexican stations. One night while I was driving along this station played Brian Eno covering the Beatles 'Tomorrow Never Knows' followed by 'One O'Clock Tomorrow' by Canadian space rock band FM. The latter song is a favourite of mine but not one that I had ever heard on the radio anywhere (I don't think that I had heard FM played on the radio since the early 80s when I still lived in Canada). I thought that I had driven through some kind of space/time warp!
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- Rattletrap, 14:34:15 01/14/02 Mon
The road trip that most sticks out in my mind was a Greyhound trip from Texas to Wisconsin I took about 5 years ago. It took about 36 hours each way and was the first time I had the *truly* unique experience of an extended bus trip--something everyone should have once in their life. I've done long drives and stuff many times, but there has never been anything else quite like that.
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- MrDave, 21:50:33 01/14/02 Mon
The summer after the summer after I graduated a Friend (a year behind me in school and freshly graduated) and I piled into his Toyota Corolla and rolled across country. On my suggestion we started a journal to record Odd thoughts that occur at high speed on the road in strange places. I still have it and laugh at some of the wacky (and wonderful) stuff that happened along the way.
The 90 mph baloney sandwich, the shoe on the side of the road, the Cthulu fires in Texas, The buildings wrapped with rubber bands in Houston, the hair dryer in New Mexico, the Gameshows in California, the Lightning in Wyoming...all of it in the journal. I never regretted the stray thought that made me suggest it.
It wasn't a hero's journey. We didn't do great things or discover insightful things about our personalities or even make advances towards the people we would eventually become. In fact, truth be told, it was a waste of time. And one of the fondest memories I have. I would not trade them for anything.
It was the journey that was important. It was doing it becasue it was there to do. While taking off for a summer and travelling with no plan or reason alone isn't safe, I have recommended the "buddy flick" style travel to my Nephew (to the horror of my Brother) as a source of genuine experiences.
And now that my nostalgia pilot light has flickered back on, I think I will spend a couple of hours looking for the little journal again and chuckle for a few hours on memory highway.
Thanks!
[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - January 11th 2002 -- Brian, 03:57:19 01/15/02 Tue
Never did a long, solo trip, but back in the 60's I drove from LA to Boston in a VW bug with my girlfriend. Since we were heading East, we drove mostly at night and the afternoons, and slept during the morning hours. I remember how many stars were in the sky as we passed through Nevada. We encountered a heavy storm in Iowa, and drove with lightening falling all around us. The next day we discovered that we had driven through (and thankfully missed)several tornadoes that had ravaged the area. It also surprised us that as we neared New England just how green the vegetation became.
The filming of the haircutting scene (shallow, you're forewarned) -- MayaPapaya9, 22:33:19 01/11/02 Fri
Am I the only person who ever wonders how they film these things? How scared must Sarah have been to have to cut her own hair, obviously in one take, in such a way that it wouldn't look like some horrible Felicity-esque accident later? So much pressure! Especially from the point of view of someone who is trying to grow their hair out it must have killed her to do it.
[> Re: The filming of the haircutting scene (shallow, you're forewarned) -- Grace, 22:51:59 01/11/02 Fri
A wig no doubt!
[> Re: The filming of the haircutting scene (shallow, you're forewarned) -- Deeva, 22:56:39 01/11/02 Fri
It really looked to me like she was cutting into a wig . You can see the hair in the back is already short when se didnt even cut that part yet.
[> An answer to your question -- Raccoon, 10:38:44 01/12/02 Sat
She was cutting into a wig - they tried out the new 'do with a wig to see how it would turn out before SMG actually had it cut. After Keri Russel's haircut, on which the WB blamed the show's drop in ratings, the network forbade their other actresses to get haircuts. (Except for Charisma Carpenter's who's not allowed to grow hers out.) It's kinda laughable, isn't it - is it the hair that keeps us watching? Some networks seem to think so *g*.
Current board
| More January 2002