November 2001 posts
Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious family)
-- Lost, 05:13:54 11/01/01 Thu
On Thanksgiving, most of my mom's side of the family gets together
at our house. Traditionally, after dinner we go see a movie together.
This year I made the suggestion of Harry Potter, and was immediately
shot down by my mom. When I asked why, she said it was because
it deals with witchcraft, and my grandma and aunts, who are very
religious, would think it blasphmous (sp?).
Also, I was talking to my cousin this week, and found that she
and her brother and sister are aren't allowed to watch shows like
Buffy because of the supernatural element.
So my question: Anyone else have family like this, and if so,
do you think, like me, that it is the stupid? I mean, Harry Potter
is one of the best book serious out there, and Buffy is one of
the best shows on television, and just because they have some
supernatural stuff in it, they are banned from places in my family.
Man, it sucks, since I don't have anyone to talk scifi with.
ANyway, thanks for the rant
Lost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Zoey, 05:38:03 11/01/01 Thu
I'm not a cradle Catholic - I'm a convert. But thru all my religious
education classes (which were detailed and deep), no mention of
witchcraft or supernatural stuff was made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- JM, 05:38:48 11/01/01 Thu
Am Catholic, but don't think it's actually specifically denominational.
I think a lot of strict Baptist families have similar rules. There
are mentions in the bible condemning witchcraft, spellcasting,
and such and some people consider it as a serious invocation of
dark powers. I don't think the Church has any rules regarding
sci-fi of fantasy entertainment, though it has fairly strict positions
on not engaging in the occult, even fortune telling. Remember
the Church still performs exorcisms, if very rarely. Calling on
magic in the real world is considered invoking the devil, and
he is not just considered a metaphor.
That said, I agree that Buffy and Angel are the best out there
and those kids are missing out on something great. However, I
think that religious freedom is probably the most important right
we have in America and toleration and respect for even those we
disagree with is vital. (Makes being a grown-up great. Then you
can do what you want.)
Hope this helps without offending any. Thank you and good night.
Good morning actually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Juliette, 06:40:56 11/01/01 Thu
I'm Catholic and so are my dad's side of the family, but none
of them seem to object to my sci-fi and fantasy addiction. My
mum's side are Presbyterian, though my mum converted to Catholicism,
and I don't think they object on religious grounds either, though
my grandma isn't too keen on violence in general (except in war
movies!) My dad doesn't like Buffy, he thinks it's creepy and
I think he vaguely disapproves of all the occult stuff and the
demons, but he's never tried to stop me watching it, and has been
very good about sitting through episode after episode on the only
tv in our house with cable!
I'm British, and I know some people over here - Anglicans I think
- objected to Harry Potter being filmed in a cathedral. But for
most people, I think, what matters is that the characters are
Goodies, fighting other characters who are Baddies, regardless
of the actual nature of the characters.
Although on a side note, I wouldn't ever practice witchcraft or
even do Ouija (how do you spell that?!) boards or tarot cards.
Too scary. No offence intended to anyone who does, I'm just a
little too paranoid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> that's how (ouija, that is) -- anom, 16:11:48 11/03/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- grifter, 07:03:53 11/01/01 Thu
I´m not religious, and neither are my parents (my mother´s
theoretically catholic and my dad and I are protestants)
so, of course, I have no trouble with that kind of thing...I´m
even watching buffy/angel with my grandmother on tape when I visit
her, she really likes it ;)
I think the religious people in europe are generally more tolerant...I
could be wrong though...
especially the protestants are very liberal (hey, I might not
believe in their "version" of god, but at least they
have cool points of view on subjects like science, homosexuality
or human rights ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's weird I thought the Catholics were much more
liberal -- Charlemagne20, 09:04:41 11/01/01 Thu
For years I considered becomming a convert from Presbyterianism
to Catholicism and becomming a priest because I felt the Catholic
church had a much more proactive and honest opinion on homosexuality,
science, and human origin.
As opposed to the nutters who profane my religion down here in
the Bible Belt.
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Catholicism is not liberal -- Whisper2AScream,
09:42:00 11/01/01 Thu
A lot of Catholics are open-minded, but the Church itself isn't.
This is the same Church that put forward the Inquisition, and
labeled forward-thinker Gaileo as a heretic. This is likewise
the same Church that began the Crusades, a violent political campaign
against Islam.
Homosexuality is still considered a sin, though homosexuals are
allowed as along as they don't engage in same-sex relations. Divorced
Catholics are forbidden to celebrate the Holy Eucharist if they've
re-married, or have had sex with people other than their ex-spouses.
This is because such actions are considered adultery in the eyes
of the Church. (The Church only accepts annuled marriages, and
this is typically only allowed once, and on a case to case basis.
In other words, you better have a good reason for wanting to dissolve
the sanctioned by God union, or else.) Pre-marital sex is also
forbidden, and abortion is always considered murder, even if the
mother's life is endangered. The Pope himself, despite his own
advanced bout with Parkinson's, has spoken out against stem-cell
research. The Church has been become open-minded slightly, only
because it's had to modernize, lest it faces the loss of more
followers. However, except for Vatican II's modernization of church
services and such, the Church has changed very little since its
establishment in the First century. And such changes were only
through a lot of kicking and screaming on the Church's behalf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The good thing in Catholicism's favor...
(still OT) -- Solitude1056, 09:46:57 11/01/01 Thu
Is its position that the bible is not a literal word-from-God
transmission, but a series of stories, metaphors, memoirs, fables,
and histories. I've yet to meet a Catholic who agrees with the
predominantly-protestant-style fundamentalism where the bible
is taken literally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- RabidHarpy, 11:00:22
11/01/01 Thu
"Is its position that the bible is not a literal word-from-God
transmission, but a series of stories, metaphors, memoirs, fables,
and histories. I've yet to meet a Catholic who agrees with the
redominantly-protestant-style fundamentalism where the bible is
taken literally."
Any legitimate scientist and/or historian will confirm that the
Bible is an historically accurate document. Yes, there are poems,
allegories, metaphors, etc. (in fact, I am currently in the process
of reading through, and marking them in) - however, the fact remains
that the bulk of it is literally accurate as well. Many details
that scientists and historicists had thought were inaccurate have,
in recent decades, proven to be true.
To each his/her own - everyone will get out of it what they are
willing to put into study of it. Our personal truths are often
subjective, but The Truth IS, (whatever it may be)...
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not what I meant. -- Solitude1056,
12:09:51 11/01/01 Thu
There is a difference between saying that "this story, from
two thousand years ago, is a metaphor where the grapes mean such-and-such
and the field means such-and-such, and was told by so-and-so to
these people with the point of illustrating this or that point"
... and saying, "this story was divinely inspired so what
it means is only what it says, literally" ... OR: "since
it's in here, there must have really been a vineyard manager,
somewhere, who really planted this or that and ended up with whatever."
On a personal level, I don't dispute that the majority of the
bible is a wonderful poetic and powerful history of a people,
even if my studies in historical forgeries opened my eyes to a
few of the more questionable "prophetic" texts. But
there's a difference between saying "it's the truth,"
as in, "this is a history," versus saying "this
is literally true" when so much of the oral tradition lends
metaphor and hyperbole to story-telling prior to the canonization
of the Talmud or the New Testament. And it's another whole step
from the 'facts equal truth' position to the moralization of that
history into a philosophy of living where one concludes that therefore,
for instance, women should cover their heads and never speak out
in religious groups, because some ex-tax collector named Paul
said so.
Blah blah blah. Here ends the explanation. (Heh.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed - thank you for
expanding... -- RH, 12:18:21 11/01/01 Thu
...many of the laws and ordinances were the traditions of the
culture and that particular time.
I'm right with you...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sol...not nice making
Rufus incontinent........;) -- Rufus, 17:23:57 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> uh... hunh? ;-)
-- Solitude1056, 19:19:54 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Even more OT: Biblical literalism
-- Tanker, 14:32:36 11/01/01 Thu
The Protestant-style fundamentalism referred to tends to concentrate
on a very few things:
1. The universe was created in 6 24-hour periods, no more than
10,000 years ago.
2. The story of the Great Flood is literally true in all details.
3. Homosexuality is an abomination.
4. If even one word of the Bible is not literally true, then none
of it is true. Therefore, every word is literally true (spot the
logical fallacy, kids!).
They pretty much ignore the rest of the Bible. Especially all
the "love your neighbor" stuff. Sorry if I sound bitter.
I live in Dallas, the Bible Belt Buckle. I don't even want to
get into how they belive modern science is a pack of lies devised
by Satan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even more OT: Biblical
literalism -- Dedalus, 14:41:05 11/01/01 Thu
One thing that makes it hard to disprove Biblical literalism -
at least for the people who can't figure it out for themselves
- is that you can always qualify your position - whatever it is
- with a quote from the Bible. Of course, another person can come
along and justify any position they come up with with yet another
quote from a different part of the Bible. The conclusion I've
come to is that it is simply impossible to prove that any book
with as many contradictions in it as the Bible is fallible. I
think it is that simple.
You so need to read some John Shelby Spong - "Rescuing the
Bible from Fundamentalism," "Why Christianity Must Change
or Die," oh yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> or even thwack
yourself over the head with Jacques Ellul -- Solitude1056, 19:23:55
11/01/01 Thu
Author of The Subversion of Christianity. (Okay to use for thwacking,
since it's not a big book.) Ellul isn't a theologian; he's an
anthropologist and sociologist, and some of his essays are fascinating.
Some of the others ones leave a taste of revisionist or apologia,
but not as badly as other authors I've read. All in all, thought-provoking,
and good even if you're not necessarily xtian but just want to
get a better handle on the historical developments and some of
the reasons & ways it ended up where it is now. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks
for the tip - sounds interesting -- Dedalus, 08:03:05 11/02/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ot? is that "off
topic"...or "old testament"? -- anom, 22:39:54
11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Inquisition -- Malandanza, 12:18:17
11/02/01 Fri
"This is the same Church that put forward the Inquisition..."
The Inquisition wasn't as bad as the legends make it out to be.
Certainly, by today's standards of tolerance it was a bad thing,
but taken in the context of the times, the Catholic Church wasn't
any worse about anti-Semitism or other forms of intolerance than
were the Protestants. Remember, our Puritan forefathers came to
America so they would have the freedom to persecute unbelievers.
Many of the stories about the Inquisition were part of the "Black
Legend" that grew up about the Spanish after their conquest
of the New World. Much was propaganda put forward by Spain's Protestant
enemies. Yes, the Spanish performed evil deeds in the New World,
but look at the Aztecs -- genocide back before Hitler popularized
it. There is a reason that Pizarro was able to conquer the Inca
Empire with 200 conquistadors -- the people subjugated by the
Incas hated them more than they hated the Spanish. Life under
the Spanish was bad -- but at least you didn't have to be worried
about being sacrificed to the sun god. Part of the problem with
the Spanish and the New World was that the New World was so far
from Spain that local despots had carte blanche to act as they
chose -- Queen Isabella's edicts went unheeded.
Similarly with the Inquisition -- there are many exaggerations
and inconsistencies. The Inquisition used torture to force confessions
-- in about 5% of the cases. Under the King's Law (or Duke, Baron
or other petty noble) torture was almost invariably used. Conditions
in church prisons were remarkably better than state prisons (a
bit like the Federal vs State prisons in the US) and people charged
by the secular authorities would often commit heresy in order
to be transferred to church jurisdiction.
Anyway, all this happened centuries ago -- to blame the Catholic
Church of today for the Crusades, autodefes and the Inquisition
is a bit like blaming modern white Americans for genocide of the
indigenous people, the Salem Witch trials, Japanese internment
camps (of WWII) and slavery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The inquisition and the witch-craze:
Catholicism against superstition -- Rahael, 12:32:44 11/02/01
Fri
Much of the bad press against the Inquisition comes from Protestant
sources.
And of course one must remember that there were TWO inquisitions
- the inquisition proper, at the Vatican, and the Spanish one
which the Spanish crown copied from the Catholic Church.
A plus point in there favour was that during the witch hunt crazes
which plagued Europe in the early modern period, the Inquisitions
invariably stopped innocent people being burned as witches. They
demanded a higher burden of proof than local trials did, and did
their best to bring rationality into a irrational and deeply unjust
situation.
They thought that those who hunted witches were as credulous and
superstitious (and thus ungodly) as the victims themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The inquisition and the
witch-craze: Catholicism against superstition -- Tanker, 17:18:59
11/02/01 Fri
Not only that, the Church didn't (and couldn't) execute anyone
for witchcraft. That was strictly the work of the civil authorities.
Mostly in Germany (about 29,000 documented executions for witchcraft).
Finding witches was never the main focus of the Inquisition anyway.
They were after heretics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The inquisition
and the witch-craze: Catholicism against superstition -- Rahael,
17:55:30 11/02/01 Fri
Tanker, I think the legal situation varied in different counries.
Witchcraft prosecutions definitely ended up in Church courts.
'Malleus Maleficarum' by bring the devil into witchcraft belief,
necessarily involved the the accusation of heretic into the mix.
And remember that this 'hammer of witches' was written by two
Domincan priests attending the Council of Trent.
And in fact, in Switzerland (the Jura region to be precise), heretics
were labelled as 'witches' - and for that reason, that region
had a unusual number of men prosecuted for witchcraft belief.
In some of the nastiest examples, local religious figures were
involved.....Nicholas Remy of Lorraine, Pierre de Lancre of the
Pays de Labourd, the Archbishop of Trier and his suffragan bishop
Peter Binsfeld....
Areas of Europe which were fragmented politically and judicially
provided the arenas for some the worst hunts - the best example
being the arch-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire and the Swiss
cantons.
But I would agree that the witch hunt was a judicial operation,
and the intensive prosecution of witches was facilitated by a
number of legal developemnts which took place between the 13th-16th
centuries. Both Secular and Ecclesiastical courts adopted a new,
inquisitorial system of criminal prosecution that made it far
easier for witch craft accusations to flourish.
At the end of the day, the important distinction to be made in
this matter is not between secular and ecclesiastical but between
local justice networks and central ones. The Inquisition, being
a centralised system of justice was less likely to fall victim
to the witch craze/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That's weird I thought the Catholics were
much more liberal -- grifter, 10:48:11 11/01/01 Thu
I guess it depends on the kind of protestantism
I was referring to (north european) lutherism, I´m sorry
I didn´t make that clear
in the end it just comes down to the common sense of individuals
I guess...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Whisper2AScream, 07:22:43 11/01/01 Thu
My family's not quite this bad though parents are Catholic (Dad
born and raised, Mom converted), they both like science fiction
and fantasy. My dad's got more problems with Willow and Tara's
relationship than the fact they're witches. Though, my mom wasn't
big on the game, Doom, since it included stuff like pentacles,
and she gave my copy of Diablo odd looks. (Though I explained
that the creepy demon guy on the CD cover was a bad guy, and you
play a character who fights them, she seemed to calm down a little.)
And I agree that it is stupid, if you really took a look at the
so-called forbidden programs, and tried to understand what they
were about, you'd realize that they're make-believe, and don't
come into play when religion's involved. Sheesh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- CaptainPugwash, 07:37:45 11/01/01 Thu
I'm an ex-religious type from a religious family (Anglican); my
mother is still wary of Harry Potter and anything else involving
'Magic'. She has a thing about Witches too.
In many cases its simply the parents preventing their children
from being exposed to another world view (paganism etc). Think
of Ned Flander's and his kids.
However (and I can understand this), many Christians don't like
seeing supernatural 'evil' trivialised (its part of their belief
system which they take very seriously). Buffy does this to some
extent, even though the show has a very serious moral/thinking
content.
I am concerned about people getting involved with something which
they think is 'fun' or 'harmless'. It IS harmless if you are a
devout materialist/sceptic, but it may be harmful if you are not
(and therefore more likely to be interested in it in the first
place). I know very few true sceptics.
I used to know someone who had her cards read on a regular basis.
I was concerned for her in the way I'd be concerned about someone
seeing a mad therapist. Its not the actual cards that are dangerous,
but her belief in them.
'Black Magic', Tarot, and Ouija et al feed on people's paranoia
and other anxieties. Its the Blair Witch effect; if ANY part of
your mind, no matter how small, is open to the possibility of
the supernatural, then you are vulnerable. It doesn't really matter
if there's anything in it or not; it can harm you in some very
real psychological ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 12 years of Catholic School, going to be a minister -- Charlemagne20,
09:01:01 11/01/01 Thu
You might want to make the arguement (if you are so inclined-it
will be a long road ahead and this is your family) that the shows
involved are about valuable lessons against fighting darkness
and the 'magic' they do is clearly fictious/no sign of actual
polytheistic/darkness content.
A show about a young boy who fights evil with a wand is far less
digusting to watch than the vast majority of movies currently
on the market and the fact it contains little to no violence,
no profanity, and no sexuality at all should be massive points
in it's favor.
The fact many households restrict those (as if restriction ever
did anything but weaken resistance) but not the other types of
movies have always struck me as more than slightly hypocritical.
You could also use the C.S. Lewis Arguement that manifestations
of the supernatural used by creatures of Good can never have any
source but from God just as the same for any actions that are
done in evil can have sources but from the Devil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Rendyl, 09:40:36 11/01/01 Thu
You did not say how old your cousins were. I have a six year old
and she is rarely allowed to watch Buffy. Many of the episodes
late in last season were just too intense for someone her age.
She has watched a few of the lighter ones this season and will
probably watch the musical next week with me but many of the other
episodes deal with themes beyond her comprehension. (Willow and
Tara loving each other is easy to explain, Joyce dying and leaving
her little girls alone is not)
Buffy is a great show for parents to watch with their teens however
because it is sooo (maybe a little overboard even) good at showing
the consequences of the actions the characters take. Instead of
the "oh I slept with and now I may be pregnant" storyline
or the "look how mature I am..we used a condom" storyline,
from BtVS we get ALL the repercussions. Feeling lost, hurting,
lonely, happy, loved, betrayed, etc. Love and sex are not movie
of the week topics and the characters deal with them a little
more realistically.
As for the supernatural elements and religious concern over them,
BtVS is not about promoting the occult. It is just a story about
a girl and her friends "holding back the night".
Buffy and Comp are aligned on the side of Good and they work to
protect that good in themselves and others. The same could be
said for the Harry Potter kids.
On a side note, if the whole family would not be comfortable with
the Potter movie maybe just you and your parents could go?
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> <>< -- RabidHarpy, 10:45:20 11/01/01 Thu
I was raised in a fairly strict Baptist household/church - and
we were not allowed watch Star Wars, or programs with occult/witchcraft,
etc., (we were, however, allowed to watch "I Dream of Jeannie",
and "Bewitched" - don't ask me what the distinction
was, I really do not know!) Obviously by the time I hit high school
I was making my own decisions about these sorts of things, but
basically, I think our parents were concerned with not wanting
to expose us, young, impressionable children that we were, to
things that could frighten, or leave a negative imprint on us,
(or confuse us theologically).
As a Christian, I absolutely believe that there are spiritual
forces of light and darkness that are subtly trying to influence
us as human beings. I believe in Eternity, Heaven and Hell, and
follow the teachings of the Bible which clearly states that all
these things exist. I have felt peace and joy, and I have felt
the presence of evil, so I know that they are real. Perhaps it
is this confidence in the spiritual that lends itself to my fascination
of the supernatural/fantastical, but it is my faith which keeps
me from exploring the darker side of the supernatural. The Bible
indicates that before Christ, God spoke through prophets and oracles,
(who were sometimes given visions of the future), yet it also
indicates that we are not to seek the advice of fortune tellers
because it is not for us to know the future - we are to trust
ourselves to God, (hence the "faith" aspect of Christianity).
Biblical teaching also warns against pride - the first of the
10 Commandments is "not to have any other gods before the
One True God" - that is, we are to put our faith, our futures,
our desires, our worship, our hope, our energies onto Our Creator,
rather than objects, others and ourselves, (or, as the case may
be - magic). Free will allows it, but God's command forbids it
- we are not to "play" at being gods because there are
serious, far-reaching consequences which we, as human beings,
are not equipped to handle.
At some point in our adolescence, I believe each person becomes
aware enough of themselves to be able to gauge what they can and
cannot handle exposing themselves to. Most of us are also sensitive
enough not to flaunt our opposing beliefs or discriminate against
others for theirs.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- grifter, 10:51:27 11/01/01 Thu
well said, if only all religious people would think like you...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- Deeva, 11:25:06 11/01/01 Thu
That was very well said. My parents are both Bhuddhists and I
was raised that way, too, but not strictly. My parents allowed
me and my siblings to explore our friends religions by letting
us go to their churches and events. It was probably the best thing
my parents could've done for us. Some people were kind of scary
in their strict beliefs and others were very welcoming. I wish
that most religious people could have your attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- JM, 13:47:04 11/01/01 Thu
From the religious right (much of the time), thank you. That was
eloquently, piously, and respectfully stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- bible belt, 16:15:52 11/02/01
Fri
"...We were, however, allowed to watch "I Dream of Jeannie",
and "Bewitched" - don't ask me what the distinction
was, I really do not know!)."
Because Elizabeth Montgomery and what's her name were so cute,
even when they were being disobedient to their masters/husbands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, what do you expect? -- vampire hunter D, 12:33:32
11/01/01 Thu
Yes, the church does consider Buffy, Harry Potter, Dungeons and
Dragons and anything with a supernatural basis to be satanic.
I'm not guessing, I was told this by a priest.
And why are you surprised. The Catholic Church is still stuck
in the Middle Ages. It was only within the last decade that they
officially accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And
they still havn't disbanded the Inquisition (no, I am not making
that up. The Inquisition still exists in Rome to this day). They
even continue to push those way too outdated attitudes toward
women that Billy was so fond of.
And they wonder why noone wants to be a priest anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Dedalus, 14:30:38
11/01/01 Thu
You actually made me laugh vampire hunter D. Maybe you shouldn't
have, but you did.
You bring up a good point about the Church and Galileo's radical
heliocentric vision. I was just reading something from 1630 about
his trial, and about how his findings were heresy because they
contradicted the Bible. It's funny. This is what I want to know
- the fundamentalists go on and on about Darwin and evolution
and how horrible it is ... why not astronomy? Galileo completely
and irrevocably destroyed the old Christian medieval cosmology
centuries before anyone had even heard of Darwin. Shouldn't HE
be the one the church should be after? Shouldn't they be passing
out tracts arguing that the universe is made up of seven crystalline
spheres instead of whether or not man came from the mighty ape?
I can just see someone on the 700 Club arguing that the sun really
revolves around the earth in accordance with scriptures. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- mm, 15:00:12
11/01/01 Thu
This is what I want to know - the fundamentalists go on and on
about Darwin and evolution and how horrible it is ... why not
astronomy? Galileo completely and irrevocably destroyed the old
Christian medieval cosmology centuries before anyone had even
heard of Darwin. Shouldn't HE be the one the church should be
after? Shouldn't they be passing out tracts arguing that the universe
is made up of seven crystalline spheres instead of whether or
not man came from the mighty ape?
Strictly speaking, because human origins hits closer to home than
the "heavenly spheres." Evolution bothers and challenges
them, just as heliocentrism bothered/challenged the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian
scholastics of the 16th/17th centuries, so they go after it tooth
and claw. To the Catholic Church's credit, it's never really had
any problem with Darwin's theory. I first learned about evolution
in Catholic elementary school, and over time I've come to find
it fascinating, elegant, compelling, and pretty unassailable.
(Dunno if that makes me as a historian illegitimate, though I
am by all accounts a "bastard." ;)
Totally OT, but I spent part of the morning held hostage in a
barber's chair by a Messianic Jewish hair stylist who was nothing
less than determined to give me the Good News. (She did give me
a great haircut, so that's something.) Needless to say, I didn't
buy her sales-pitch, but out of pure curiosity could any of the
theologians around here explain what Messianic Judaism is? Whenever
I hear something new, I just gotta know what it is. (Ah, the joys
of free and guiltless inquiry....;););)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Dedalus,
15:26:05 11/01/01 Thu
Messianic Judaism? Sounds like maybe Jews who accept Christ to
me.
I have mixed feelings on Catholicism. Makes sense, since I have
mixed feelings about all things religious. They do have some great
theologians, but they still have some awfully funny ideas about
birth control and the like. Still, I visited a Catholic monastery
once for a day, and it was cool.
My halfway humorous point about Galileo was ... well, just what
I said. I don't understand how human origins could be more upsetting
to them than the systematic unraveling of the very universe they
live in. They should deny astronomy in the same way they deny
biology. Logic has to apply equally.
Seriously, I want to see the fundamentalists get REALLY fundamental.
Just for a sociological experiment. Why not go all the way? If
they really believe in a literal Bible, they have to believe that
the earth is stationary, and has four corners, much like the good
book says. I can quite easily imagine *experts* coming on Trinity
Broadcast Network and arguing that the earth is flat and that
it doesn't turn on its axis. And that airplanes don't really fly
because, much like the tower of Babel, they would be struck down
for getting that close to heaven, and that aviation is actually
some mass demonic mind game the liberal humanists are playing
on everyone.
And I'm sure countless Americans would believe it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Ryuei,
15:39:10 11/01/01 Thu
Far as I can tell, Messianic Judaism is an attempt to show that
since Jesus supposedly fulfills the Jewish scriptures and is therefore
the Jewish Messiah, there is no necessary contradiction between
being an observant Jew and being a Christian. Remember that the
original Christians were observant Jews and that there was a big
argument between Paul and Peter over whether gentile converts
needed to also observe the Torah. Paul won that round. The Romans
won round two when they wiped out the Jewish-Christian community
in Jerusalem along with all the other Jews and Jerusalem itself
in 70 A.D. after the Bar-Kochba rebellion.
Also, Karen Armstrong's book The Battle For God discusses the
routes of Protestant Fundamentalism (arguing that it is in fact
a modern movement - but you'll have to see what she means by that)
and in particular discusses the implications of the Scopes Trial
which is when funamentalist Christians started making Darwin the
focus of their attacks against secular humanism.
I would also recommend Ken Wilber. His book Sex, Ecology, and
Spirituality is not a great summary and attempt at systematizing
the findings of anthropologists, developmental psychologists,
and philosophers. In that book he argues that the whole world
went through a period of mythic-imperialism before being able
to enter into a more rational worldview. In fact, most of the
world has still not made the transition from a mythical to a rational
worldview. I am grossly oversimplifying the very good case he
makes. At any rate, the mythic-imperial mode is not confined to
any one religion. Not only that, but those within the same religion
may be at different stages of cultural, spiritual, psychological
development. I know this for a fact. Most of my high school and
college teachers were Christian Brothers and Dominicans who were
teaching me about Zen, Liberation theology, and existentialist
Jesuit theology. This was way beyond the mythic worldview. On
the other hand, I have know more fundamentalist Buddhists than
I can shake a stick at. So religion and even denomination alone
will not suffice to determine where a person is at developmentally.
I should also mention that Catholic fundamentalists do obviously
exist, but they do manifest differently than Protestant ones.
They tend to buy into the absolute authority of the hierarchy,
creeds, and dogmas and not so much on the literal meaning of the
Bible. It is still a theology of reactionary fear however.
Also, I should note, when I was first getting involved in Buddhist
practice, Catholic fundamentalists told my parents that by meditating
one could get possessed by the devil. My parents just rolled their
eyes at this. They are way beyond that stage of literalism and
fear. It is sad though that these fear-ridden Catholics seems
totally ignorant of the grand mystical tradition of the Catholic
Church - namely Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Nicholas Cusanos,
Pseudo-Dionysius, and even the interiority of Augustine. Truly
a shame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Dedalus, 16:19:33
11/01/01 Thu
First off, I have to recommend the last of Joseph Campbell's Mask
of God books, Creative Mythology. He has some very good points
about how we currently have to be the makers of our own mythology.
He traces this from the twelfth century all the way down to Joyce
and friends. In a way, this is a very exciting time, if a dangerous
one.
Second off, the question. What exactly is a fundamentalist Buddhist?
I know there is a hierarchy, both social and metaphysical, but
since the whole thing is pretty much based on impermanence and
personal experience, how could that be a breeding ground for fundamentalism?
I mean, I guess anything could, but the Dalai Lama seems pretty
certain Buddhism doesn't have too much in the way of fundamentalism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Ryuei, 10:28:22
11/02/01 Fri
The Dalai Lama doesn't think there are fundamentalist Buddhists?!
LOL.
That's funny considering the problem he has had with the New Kadampa
movement - who are reactionary Gelukpa purists (though I am not
sure if they are fundamentalists so maybe I should take that back).
There are indeed Buddhists (and I have met them) who believe that
every word of the sutras is true and to be taken literally. If
the Lotus Sutra says a huge tower half the diameter of the Earth
rose up out of the ground and floated into the air then that is
exactly what happened. If the Buddha predicted that his Dharma
would only last 2,000 years before the age of corruption and infighting,
then that is exactly what will happen (or has happened) as soon
as the calendar marks off the correct date. (In East Asia this
date was believed to be in the year 1052 - they were a bit confused
about the Buddha's actual dates and to be honest scholars are
still guessing). Then there are those who, while not as literal
minded as Protestant fundamentalists, are just as rigid and triumphalist
in their adherence to certain sutras and/or founders of the various
sects. There are even those who mix such reactionary interpretations
with nationalism as in Sri Lanka, Thailand, China (before the
Communists), and Japan.
I should also mention that in fuedal Japan the temples even raised
armies of monk-warriors called sohei, who marched on each others
temples and burned them down. They even marched against and sometimes
for the daimyo (fuedal lords). The peasants often rose up against
their oppressors under the banner of thier Nembutsu practice (calling
on the name of Amida Buddha) and the townsmen of the Imperial
Capital of Kyoto for a brief period took over the city to restore
order under the banner of the Nichiren sponosored town militias.
In China, the infamous White Lotus Society was basically a Buddhist
terrorist group which attempted to take back China from the alien
Manchu dynasty. In Tibet you also have "secondary monks"
who acted as temple warriors and of course the various temples
and lineages were directly running the country.
So fundamentalism, nationalism, and the use of religious rhetoric
for political ends is not alien to Buddhist cultures. One thing,
however, is true, Buddhism itself has never sponsored forced conversions
or crusades. And for the most part in Asia it has acted more as
a counter-culture rather than as the religion of empire. This
is one of the main reasons why on the whole it has a more peaceful
record than Christianity or Islam. It just doesn't suit itself
very well to empire building or maintenance. But then, neither
do the Christian or Muslim contemplative traditions.
Bottom line is - human nature is human nature no matter what the
religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely right on
Sri Lanka -- Rahael, 19:17:41 11/02/01 Fri
That's exactly what's happened - religious fundamentalism, plus
nationalism = some buddhist monks carrying guns and going on marches
demanding the death of Tamils.
bitterest of bitter ironies.
btw I am half Sinhalese/Buddhist and half Tamil/Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, Ryuei -- mm, 19:56:17
11/01/01 Thu
I've read Armstrong's History of God, which covers some of the
same ground. Good stuff, even if she overcompensates a bit on
some of the Islamic material (and I say this as a semi-Islamist).
Buddhism anecdote: My mother once met the Dalai Lama. Actually,
she was forced to "wand" him when she worked in airport
security a few years ago, after he beeped while passing through.
She was utterly embarrassed, but typically he found the whole
thing amusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "messianic judaism" --
anom, 18:23:20 11/03/01 Sat
"Far as I can tell, Messianic Judaism is an attempt to show
that since Jesus supposedly fulfills the Jewish scriptures and
is therefore the Jewish Messiah, there is no necessary contradiction
between being an observant Jew and being a Christian."
Not only that, they say Jews are not "complete" until
they accept Jesus as the Messiah. They have a mission to convert
Jews, & to do it they imitate Jewish institutions & practices,
incl. calling their places of worship synagogues instead of churches
(& getting them listed under Synagogues in the Yellow Pages, leading
to controversy w/real synagogues), having services that follow
the structure of Jewish ones (but using the name of Jesus in the
prayers) & having Passover seders in which the various symbolic
foods on the seder plate are reinterpreted as Xtian symbols. Basically
they're "Jews for Jesus" under a more acceptable-sounding
name. For several years now, there's been an organization called
Jews for Judaism that combats their efforts.
The Wilber book sounds interesting. I hadn't seen the term "mythic-imperialism"
before, & it kind of surprises me, because I don't connect the
2 ideas. What does it refer to beyond the ancient idea of kings
being gods or their descendants? I'm also not clear on what it
has to do w/sex & ecology. (I know, I should just read the book,
but I don't know when I'll have time to.)
"...Catholic fundamentalists told my parents that by meditating
one could get possessed by the devil."
I saw this on a list of several innocuous things that supposedly
could lead one away from the One True Path. Seems like anything
that could encourage opening one's mind to anything but what they
decide you should believe.
BTW, someone else (I think) referred to the use of the idea of
the devil in Xtianity. In Judaism, Satan (in Hebrew, often "the
satan"--"hasatan") is far less powerful. The word
literally means "accuser," although it is often translated
as "adversary"; I'm trying to remember which writer
compares this figure to a prosecuting attorney (w/God the judge,
& I don't know who if anyone was arguing for the defense, although
I think on Yom Kippur the person leading the service is supposed
to play this role). In any case, the most powerful Satan is shown
as being in the Hebrew scriptures is in Job, & even there he has
to get God's permission to do anything to Job & his family & can
only act within the limits God sets. He is nowhere near being
a pretender to God's throne & as far as I know isn't portrayed
as trying to overthrow the heavenly hierarchy. The much greater
power attributed to him in Xtianity (at least the more fundamentalist
denominations) seems to me, as Ryuei says, to stem from fear,
& perhaps also acts as a way to convince people they need the
Church's protection against him (kind of the other side of the
coin).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for further clarifying
-- mm, 19:13:52 11/03/01 Sat
Speaking of the devil, Bill Moyers tells a nice story in "The
Power of Myth." In a Persian myth, Satan loves God, so much
that he refuses to bow to His creation: Man. For refusing, God
casts Satan out of heaven. And that's a metaphor for hell, in
a way; for what greater hell is there than to be away from the
one you love?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- maddog, 16:10:50 11/01/01 Thu
For a very strict religious family that makes sense...it's all
too common unfortunately. I think they skip the main idea of fantasy...it's
to stimulate the imagination. And if the parents do their job
and teach the difference between fantasy and reality there wouldn't
be a problem. Or at least, there shouldn't be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from
a religious family) -- grifter, 09:37:45 11/02/01 Fri
It´s quite the reversal I´d say (but then, I´m
a sarcastic asshole ;)
The religious fundamentals DO realise that fantasy stimulates
imagination...that´s why they don´t like it ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley and Angel -- the corruption of false responsibility, attractive
faults. -- SingedCat, 07:50:06 11/01/01 Thu
OK, once again paralelling Wesley and Angel, this time with the
guilt.
It has been pointed out before that Angel's suffering from the
guilt of all the deeds of the demon that possessed him was unreasonable--that
this was not evil he in fact committed, or which any amount of
his own self-improvement can prevent in the future or expunge
from the past. His journey these last two seasons has taught him
that, and while the essential dilemma of his exsistence still
makes him prone to brood, I believe the counterproductivity of
feeling guilt for sins that are not yours and therefore can never
be atoned for has been vividly demonstrated to him-- that it can
only create endless grief and despair that will corrode the rest
of your personality and destroy your character.
So now Wesley has the same problem, and I don't think his fear
of losing control will let him easily let go of the guilt-- it
would mean fundamentally acknowledging his powerlessness to prevent
what happened.
This is where I switch to my own personal head-cam, and from this
perspective I see this happening a lot in our society. Our social
structure is built on the idea that you are who you make yourself,
and that certain charatcer flaws that carry this idea to extreme
are more acceptable, even kind of--attractive. In some facet of
the social eye Wesley is proving himself worthy, nailing himself
on the cross of self-determination.
To run with that idea for a moment, we see these attractive faults
in many of our archetypes-- those who overwork themselves to exhaustion,
or refuse to allow themselves to relax, or to let their guard
down among friends. It's easy to take these images as bad role-models,
opting for these attractive problems instead of confronting our
own messiness, laziness, foolishness or short-sightedness....Like
my sitting here writing this as a way to get out of working out
this morning and writing music.
Right-- that's the view from the personal headcam, back to you.
:D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wesley and Angel -- the corruption of false responsibility,
attractive faults. -- JM, 08:24:02 11/01/01 Thu
Some great points. I think that was the message of last season
and of last week. The last scene with Wes is contrasted with the
scene of Angel and Cordy training together. Angel has done very
evil things, he's even talking about them. He shares some responsibility
for the women who died or were beaten. Sure, he's sorry, he feels
bad, but he's moved on. He's not going to indulge in it or let
it lead to self-destructive behavior or cut himself off from the
people he cares about. I also agree that social, culture forces
elevate behavior till it tends to become a vice. Part of our agressive
national character I suppose. Seems that ever virtuous characteristic
has a potential darkside.
I think you also hit on a major point of the ep, responsibility.
It was an episode about taking appropriate responsibility and
action, not a PSA on woman battering. I think ME uses issues as
back drops, canvases, dramatic fodder. Joss has said he's not
interested in preaching, creating role models, or sending messages.
Plus, everyone knows violence against women equals bad. Probably
even the abusers.)
What I think Angel has really let go of is his tendency to indulge
in self-punishment. Wes is new at this. This is probably the first
truly horrible thing he's done, and he hasn't had 247 years to
develop a healthy philosophy. Plus an epiphany. He's going to
be hard on himself (and we'll enjoy it dramatically) but he'll
pull through. He usually gets up after you knock him down.
I'm going to cut him some slack though, he's not just wallowing
in the guilt and the shame, he's terrified of himself. I'm not
sure primal misogyny is right, but some of the stuff he said was
out of his own psyche. It's clear that his notions of manhood
are strongly influenced by a rejection of feminine characteristics.
The emphasis on strength, bravery, and lack of weakness twisted
into contempt for both the feminine and the female. Self-restraint
twisted into a desire to dominate. He's having to reexamine who
he is, and the source of the man he is. Not having a real nice
time right now.
So, um basically using many words to agree with you. Think ME
agrees with you too. And yay to less broody Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you, both -- Rahael, 08:43:36 11/01/01 Thu
You've given me lots of great points to think about.
Is Wesley's rejection of the feminine connected to his desire/ability
to make 'hard' decisions as apposed to 'emotional' ones? Such
as wanting to destroy the box of gavroch rather than exchanging
it for Willow, and also being able to sacrifice some of the rebels
in Pylea for the ultimate good.
I admire the way the writers have built up a consistent character
over so many seasons. Also, Wesley's strong identification and
need for approval from the Watcher's Council in BtVS seems to
be reflection of his attitude to his father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BtVS vs. The Princess Bride?! ("All the Way" - Spoilers)
-- RabidHarpy, 09:10:21 11/01/01 Thu
For some reason, the exchange between Buffy and Spike in the basement
of the "Magic Box", reminded me the scene in the hovel
of "The Princess Bride"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Buttercup: "Fetch me that pitcher...?"
Wesley: "As you wish..." (hands it to her).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The narrator informs us that Buttercup's recent haughtiness towards
Wesley, (a poor farm-boy who loves her), has changed and she has
just discovered that she loves him. When he enters the hovel she
asks him to fetch an empty pitcher that is hanging from the shelf
above her head. Buttercup can easily reach the pitcher herself,
and has no need of Wesley's assistance, however, her request is
not really for his help - she asks to see if, a) he cares enough
to do it for her; and, b) to test/confirm whether he will respond
positively to her newly discovered feelings for him. Wesley's
answer ("As you wish"), we are told, really means, "I
love you", and so the courtship begins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Buffy: "Where's the mandrake root?"
Spike: (Takes it off the shelf and shares about the best way to
store it...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Anya asks Buffy to get more mandrake root from the basement,
she assumes that Buffy knows where it is based on her prior experience
working in the shop. Buffy makes a comment that recalls her brief
working stint, (fetching goods from the basement), and we presume
that she must have some idea of where the mandrake root is kept.
Enter Spike. His comment about the "rough and tumble"
throws her completely off-balance - (it seems as if she has just
been caught having secret thoughts about Spike?!)
Buffy's next request is to ask him help her get the item which
she (presumably) already knows the location of. He responds by
getting the item for her and sharing his knowledge of it's storage.
A unique courtship ritual indeed - Buffy is not just playing the
"helpless" damsel, but is also testing/confirming Spike's
reciprocation of her newly-discovered feelings, (ie. "Does
he still like me?/Does he really like me?")
Spike responds in kind by locating the jar of mandrake root and
giving it to her, (a symbolic "offering" of himself).
Not only that, but he imparts his wisdom about the keeping of
the roots to her - this, in essence, says to her that he is knowledgeable
and has a care for such simple things as the proper storage of
the roots, (ie. he notices details - he is willing and cares enough
to share even simple insights with her). This entire scene is
very subdued and surprisingly, and subtly tender. Although no
specific declarations of their feelings have been made, they have
both stepped onto equal footing - the first step in their relationship
has been established.
This is further witnessed when Buffy visits Spike's crypt to tell
him of the vampire attack. She decisively seeks Spike's aid, (they
are now partners), and he responds by relaying the message from
Giles, calming her fears about Dawn, and proving that his concern
is active, ("I've already checked all the tunnels and Giles
is checking out the cemeteries...") Buffy shows that their
relationship is secure enough that she can just walk into his
crypt, dig through his things and borrow weapons - she also knows
- without hesitation - that if she gives him a weapon, he will
help her without having to be asked, (although, at first, this
whole exchange is lost on Spike - "You're not going to find
her in there..." - he is still, perhaps, expecting that he
will be accused of hiding Dawn, or of somehow being involved in
her disappearance? He has become used to Buffy's usual attitude
towards him.)
Again, Buffy seems to unconsciously be confirming Spike's feelings
for her - his response is again positive. When they enter the
cemetery, Spike takes complete control of the situation from the
start. He reassures Giles by grabbing his shoulder, and addresses
the group of vampires - he is taking the lead and has no qualms
about showing the other vamps where his allegiance stands. As
soon as Buffy enters the picture, he defers to her - letting her
take over and address Dawn, but as we watch, he is seen sizing
up the threat around them, and silently/non-verbally communicating
with Giles as to the next course of action, (ie. "I've got
your back, love.") One of the vampires asks if "we can
fight yet?" - Spike gives him that "Idiot!" look,
and on Buffy's cue the fight begins.
The communication between Buffy and Spike in this episode is delightful!
It's like a little dance, or a conversation - each little question
by one partner is answered by the other, and back and forth they
go... Spike treats her as an equal because Buffy treats him as
an equal, ("You treat me like a man..."). They know
each other's strengths, and they are each beginning to learn the
other's rhythm.
I am looking forward to the day when they will seriously "Tango"...!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Observations! -- Brian, 12:24:24 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great Observations and mandrake root -- Fred, the
obvious pseudonym, 17:49:39 11/01/01 Thu
I may not remember correctly, but wasn't mandrake root a common
component of fertility and/or love potions? This would give the
exchange more symbolism.
Of course, vampires are NOT supposed to be fertile (haven't been
watching AtS.)
Comments from those who know more about this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BtVS vs. The Princess Bride?! ("All the Way"
- Spoilers) -- Ada, 19:25:51 11/01/01 Thu
And may I add to your wonderful description this one little thing?
At the end of the episode, when Spike says good-bye and leaves,
Buffy's glance lingers after him until a word from Willow brings
her back . . .
Sigh. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> er, ahem...coupla things -- anom, 22:37:12 11/01/01 Thu
"... that if she gives him a weapon, he will help her without
having to be asked, (although, at first, this whole exchange is
lost on Spike - 'You're not going to find her in there....')"
She goes for the weapons because she saw the victim of the vampire
carjacking & knows what they're up against. Spike is surprised
because he doesn't know--he thinks they're just looking for Dawn
wandering around on a night vamps usually take off.
"He reassures Giles by grabbing his shoulder...."
Reassures him? He's off the edge of the screen when he does this,
so all we see is a hand clamping down on Giles when last we knew
he was surrounded by (hostile) vamps. The obvious assumption is
that this is an attack, until we see it's Spike. And Giles is
far from reassured--he gives a start, since Spike is behind him
& he makes the same obvious assumption.
Methinks you're trying a little too hard to make things fit the
way you want to see them....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: er, ahem...coupla things -- RabidHarpy, 06:12:11
11/02/01 Fri
"Methinks you're trying a little too hard to make things
fit the way you want to see them..."
...what can I say, I'm a hopeless romantic! ;)
Besides, Giles was pretty freaked out to be surrounded by vamps
- obviously he was startled by Spike, but I don't think his first
assumption would have been to think that Spike was spear-heading
the group, (especially seeing as Dawn was involved, and given
the close relationship between Dawn and Spike - he was her babysitter
for the last 3 months!) Not only that, but from my recollections,
Spike has never actively "attacked" on Hallowe'en, (apparently
because there are "rules" against it).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: er, ahem...coupla things -- random visitor, 06:53:22
11/02/01 Fri
In regards to Spike startling Giles, I don't think that Giles
assumed Spike was with the gang because Giles doesn't back away
from Spike when he sees him. A possible reason that Giles was
not reassured was that it was now only 2 against, I think, maybe
10 vampires, plus they had to save Dawn, and Buffy wasn't there
yet to help even the numbers. Also, Giles went to Spike earlier
in the episode for help, so why would he assume that Spike was
with these other vampires; especially since we never see Spike
hanging out with other vamps.
Also, I think Spike might have wanted to freak Giles out. Spike
found enjoyment in the biker demon's rampage, and this might be
his only source of "fun," temporarly scaring the Scooby
Gang with thoughts that he might be another evil vampire. I think
that is just Spike's personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O/T Post. Fine Art and A Quandary of the Heart... -- AngelVSAngelus,
10:07:11 11/01/01 Thu
I'm going to scan the slides of my entire portfolio of paintings
soon, and I thought perhaps someone here might be a collector
willing to give them a once over?
So as not to hog any more unnecessary space on the board, I'll
include my other off-topic subject within this same post...
I wanted to ask you all, anyone, what the components for a relationship
are. I ask as much because I want to know what's missing. Allow
me to explain:
I had been "going out" (and I hate to use such a trite
sounding term for our relationship) with the most wonderful girl
for seven and a half months, and they brought me a great deal
of happiness. She and I have an understanding of each other that
no one else has of either of us, we talk for hours on end, but
we don't even have to to know what the other is thinking. We have
a great deal of commonalities, we love the same books, we listen
to alot of the same music, and we have differences that just make
things that much more interesting. I can share with her my every
thought and passion, all my geeky uber-knowledge of movies or
my latest idea for a painting or my problems with my father, ANYTHING.
I'm incredibly physically attracted to her, and while this is
a plus and an afterthought to me (so many things take precedence
over physicality), its a strong feeling nonetheless.
Recently Claribel broke up with me, and it wasn't about a disagreement,
any kind of argument, her losing interest or care in me. She considers
me her best friend in the whole world, the only person that knows
her intricacies and intimacies, and she'd never let me go. However,
right now, at this point in her life, she's not ready for a relationship
of the romantic kind.
Naturally, though I understood and respected her wishes, this
devastated me on an emotional level. Initially I thought I was
rejected, that I'd done something wrong. If I was really a good
boyfriend she'd be so happy that she'd be ready, right? Self blame,
self doubt, and lack of self esteem plagued my thoughts every
waking hour, and I literally had a period of two weeks where I
was able to do NOTHING but cry. My art, writing, school, work,
family, friends, everything grew dark in the shade of pall of
darkness that had come over me. Things don't seem as meaningful
when their center of gravity, the thing that they revolve around,
shifts.
Then, I came to my senses, with a little help from her. The combination
of her reassurance that I was perfect and that no one else would
have even convinced her to TRY having a relationship, and the
happiness that I experience when spending time with her, even
as her friend, canceled out all of the sadness that I felt. I
still love her. So I came to a conclusion.
If she's not ready now, then I will wait. She's the only one for
me. Now, I know some people will think I'm insane for that decision,
that's not my question.
My question is about love and relationships. What ingredient was
missing there? I like to believe that I'm really mature in the
way of understanding what should be a foundation of such a thing,
trust, understanding, consideration, care, and committment. I
really want to understand, in depth, what it is that may be preventing
Claribel from being ready for a relationship. I hope no one misconstrues
that as my not respecting, or even questioning it. I genuinely
just want to know, for the sake of putting the last bits of that
pain and confusion to rest and peace.
Sorry if I rambled,
AngelVSAngelus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O/T Post. Fine Art and A Quandary of the Heart... --
Rendyl, 11:06:01 11/01/01 Thu
I am not sure how to put this and I do not wish to insult or influence
you or Claribel so if I overstep just whap my toes a little.
Love (much like life) happens. It does not follow a timetable
or a schedule, nor does it brake for things like "it is not
the right time for this in my life" or "I was not looking
to fall in love" etc, etc. Love is sort of there whether
you wish it or not.
You did not give your ages. (and no I am not stereotyping but
your problem is different depending on whether you are in your
teens, twenties, thirties, etc) Is this a case of she is not ready
for your relationship to become more physically intimate or is
it a case of she is not ready for a commitment to you and the
relationship? They are very different things and come from different
places. The first is just a matter of patience and support but
the second is a serious problem.
As for what was/is missing, only Claribel can answer that. Her
(and your) thoughts, feelings and perceptions led you to this
place and she is the only one who can give you the answers you
are looking for.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> IMHO - Springboard for your Thoughts... -- RabidHarpy, 11:20:41
11/01/01 Thu
Hi AvA - for starters, I don't claim to be an authority on relationships,
however, I would gently remind you that everyone's ideas/ideals
of love are different - they are often based on the relationships
we have had and seen throughout our lives. Each person handles
love in their own way - some people jump in immediately, give
100%, and are deliriously happy! Others are more cautious because
prior experience has taught them to take their time and test whether
this time it's the "real" thing. Still others need to
step back and examine if this is really the kind of love they
are looking for, and whether or not they are able to make the
commitment they believe this relationship deserves.
I would advise friendship, patience and support - if you are prepared
to wait, give her the time and space she needs - if you two are
"meant to be" together, you will be. If not, you will
have gained a wonderful friend and learned a lot that will benefit
your future relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O/T Post. There Can Be More Than One..... -- sasha,
12:05:34 11/01/01 Thu
I'll just add to the previous posts that IMHO, there can be one
or many reasons why a seemingly perfect relationship doesn't work.
Some of the reasons I have seen are:
1) the 2 people are at different phases of life, example: one
is in college while the other is at a full-time job and buying
a house and settling down, one is a vampire and the other is the
slayer...
2) one person is having personal issues which have nothing to
do with the other person, example: at war with their parents,
death of a close friend, stressed out by debt, illness, being
the slayer, etc.
3) one person does't know what they really want out of life having
not discovered yet who they really are (need more time to grow
on their own) during which what they say they want and what they
actually do are completely different things
4) one person may have unfullfilled dreams or goals they need/want
to complete before settling down, example: study abroad, travel,
devoting a year to volunteer work
5) one person may have relationship issues based on their past
history and be afraid of committment
6) one person may not care for the other as much, example: one
person thinks they've met their ideal person but the other is
still looking for their ideal person
7) one person may really want the relationship but doesn't choose
to make the relationship a priority because of external forces,
example: money or lack thereof, different religions or culture
or race, family disapproval, in love with someone else
YMMV.
You have lots of choices here. You can:
1) accept it when she says it has nothing to do with you
2) talk it out
3) be friends
4) not be friends
5) be patient
6) move on
.
.
x) anything else you can think of
Its all up to you, dude. I think anyone who writes posts like
you will be able to organize your thoughts (maybe by writing them)
and logic this problem out.
Good Luck!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To answer some questions from before... -- AngelVSAngelus,
12:40:11 11/01/01 Thu
I'm eighteen, since June, and she'll be seventeen in March. I
graduated this year and have since started at art school, and
she's a Junior in highschool right now.
I believe that in this case it would be a combination of external
forces and her need to grow into herself as a person. The external
forces being school and responsibilities associated with it at
this time.
Perhaps I need to grow more into myself as well, in a different
way. I think I have a very good definition of my being, but I
think maybe its unhealthy to be so uncomfortable with solitude
as I am. I think I've gotten much better than I used to be (two
years ago there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't lament
my not having found someone special), but I still feel like something
is... missing, every once in a while. Now that feeling can be
worse, having actually experienced that for a number of months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: $0.02 worth from an old(er) woman -- WW,
13:30:42 11/01/01 Thu
AvA, I'm surprised to learn that you're 18. You do seem very mature
in your posts.
I don't know if you'll be able to do this, but please try to take
into account that a lot of the frustration you feel with not being
with a special someone is based on biology. (I know I would have
been really ticked it anyone had said that to me, when I was 18!).
Looking back on it now, and hindsight being 20/20, I can see that
for years the biological imperative led me a merry chase, of which
I was totally unaware. I thought I was basing my behaviour on
things like love and companionship, but in retrospect a lot of
it was totally beyond my control. I can recall so clearly the
discomfort with solitude that you speak of, the overwhelming need
to be part of a couple. It's not something that goes away until
you're much older. It's necessary for the survival of the species,
after all.
Believe me, I don't want to offend you or belittle the depth of
your feeling for Claribel. I just wish I had been able to realize
when I was 18 just how much of what I was feeling was owing to
hormones. I think I would have been able to relax and enjoy myself
a lot more, and been happier to be on my own occasionally. Maybe
it's just something everyone has to go through at that stage of
life. I wish you all the best!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I Do Understand That... -- AngelVSAngelus,
14:41:13 11/01/01 Thu
I appreciate your advice, and the compliment. I know that you're
right about some of it being biological, though its hard to fathom
so when it brings forth such emotional responses.
To return to a question of far less import to me from the past:
Um... anyone interested in buying a painting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Not a collector, but I'd sure be
interested in seeing them! ;o) -- WW, 15:47:57 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> well, question answered, problem
solved... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:21:50 11/01/01 Thu
You all gave me food for thought, and a sense of non-closure,
so I had to ask her, I had to know if there was a possibility,
a chance in the future. She said no, in essence. She told me she
doesn't want a boyfriend, that things are easier when people are
just friends.
Can someone tell me why I am always JUST a friend? What unholy
virus I must have contracted that has afflicted me with an impossibility
for a romantic relationship?
Please don't think that I belittle the meaning of friendship and
devalue what it is to be her best friend, but I do honestly consider
friendship to be on a lower pedestal, because, to me, a romantic
relationship is a transcendent form OF friendship. Someone LOVES
you.
I'm sorry for this post. I know its self indulgent, and its moany.
I just felt the need to say something somewhere...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Problem definitely NOT
solved... (O/T) -- WW, 17:59:40 11/01/01 Thu
Of course a loving, romantic relationship is a different thing
than a friendship. And of course you want one. And you'll find
one.
Your friend said she didn't want a boyfriend. Okay, take that
at face value and it doesn't say anything about you and your ability
to attract a loving partner.
As someone else said above, when you find the person you love
who loves you back, there isn't a lot of hesitancy and negotiating,
it just is. Buffy told Dawn the hardest thing in this world is
to live in it, but I sometimes think the hardest thing is to be
patient!
"Impossibility for a romantic relationship?" I don't
think so. Again, from an older point of view, every person I have
been in love with in my life has been absolutely the only one
in the world for me...my perfect soul-mate...until the next one
comes along and I fall in love with them. I went from one relationship
that lasted 20 years, spent a year alone, and then found my partner,
with whom I've been blissfully happy for the past 5 years. But
hey, I'm not dead yet. Who knows what will happen in the next
10 or 20 years?
I once played a nutty psychologist in a play called Beyond Therapy
(I think it was even made into a movie, eventually) and I've always
remembered one of my lines to a patient who was bemoaning her
inability to find the "right person:"
There is no "right person!" Everyone is limited and,
depending on your perspective, they're either horrible, or okay.
The good thing is there are a lot more people out there who you
will think are okay and who will think you are okay than otherwise.
(Just ignore the horrible ones, anyway!)
This is so hard, because I still remember so clearly how I felt
when people said things like this to me when I was younger. And
maybe there really is no way to make it all right, right now.
Maybe everybody just has to live through this stuff, before they
become who they're meant to be.
Seems to me you've made a darn good start at becoming, AvA.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: All Threads Lead to Campbell,
even the Mushy Ones -- Dedalus, 17:46:47 11/01/01 Thu
Okay, it all comes down to what Campbell always talks about. And
he talked a lot about love. What a wonderful subject he wrote,
and what a wonderful world of mythology that centers around it.
He defines three types of love -
Eros - this he defines as the zeal of the organs for each other.
This is what the oh-so-wise WW was talking about. And to be sure,
it does drive adolescent love to a significant extent. Whether
it is that way in your case or not, I wouldn't dare presume to
say.
Agape - ah, this is spiritual love. Love your neighbor as yourself,
all that kind of thing. Much like Eros, it doesn't really matter
who the person is. You love them just the same.
Amor - the good stuff, the left-hand path, etc. This is the way
of the troubadours, the way of the heart. This is the meeting
of the eyes, the dizzy rapture, the butterflies in the stomach.
This is Dante seeing Beatrice for the first time, or Angel watching
Buffy being called that bright sunny afternoon. This is the person
to person love that defies both dogma and creed if necessary.
This is what you seem to believe your relationship with C is all
about, and if it is, that's cool. You just got to say yes to the
heartbreak and the pain, and if possible, spin off a few poems
about it. The agony of love is the agony of life, after all.
Not sure any of that helped, but I just wanted to bring in a Campbell
reference. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Free Advice, and Worth Every
Penny -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 18:12:28 11/01/01 Thu
As OnM said, there is a certain temptation to see oneself as somehow,
if not divine, then wise and powerful in these posts; we have
the virtue of anonymity. We are shielded from repercussions.
An elaborate way to lead up to the point that I might be the last
person to give advice on matters of the heart -- but I won't let
that stop me. I trust you will take these comments with a grain
of salt the size of Nebraska.
I think that you've received some very good advice in these posts,
particularly from Sasha, Wisewoman, Dedalus, and RabidHarpy. You
also deserve substantial credit -- you controlled yourself despite
the very powerful blow you received and did not injure yourself,
Claribel, or the relationship. As such you showed far more maturity,
responsibility, and strength than I did at 18. (I should point
out I am much older now.)
I knew one couple that moved in together one week after they met
for the first time. She was 18, he was 19. They recently celebrated
their twentieth wedding anniversary.
This is just to say that such an outcome is not impossible. I
should add, however, that for every one like that I've seen I've
seen five, perhaps seven, where people form a permanent attachment,
even marry, too young. Then, some years later, when the fires
of that first passion fade, they realize that they do not have
the needed compatibility for a lifetime commitment. I've seen
so many divorces of friends.
I would suggest that you go on as you have begun. Be strong enough
to take and maintain that step back from lover to friend, and
preserve your hope that you can one day return. The friendship
and trust that follows is, I think, a needed (but perhaps not
sufficient) first step for a lifetime commitment. If you try to
rush through this stage I think it will do you both more harm
than good.
If this advice does not meet your needs, discard it freely. If
any others on this net disagree, please let AvA know quickly.
I hope to do no harm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies to Dedalus
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 18:15:20 11/01/01 Thu
I realized only after I posted that the title of my last post
might be read as a snide comment on the post by Dedalus. This
was not my intent; I wanted to say that MY advice was free and
worth no more than the price.
Sorry; it was not my intent to send an inadvertent flame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL -- Dedalus,
20:01:54 11/01/01 Thu
Thanks, Fred. I'm sure my post was worth about what it cost, though.
I was merely trying to tie Campbell in where no one but me would
have thought to stick him. :-)
Ah well. Thanks for being so considerate anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebellion (spoilers for "all the way" "fool for
love" and "the gift") -- Sheri, 11:24:08 11/01/01
Thu
In "All the Way," Spike tells one of the vamp delinquents
that he is the rebel, while the other is simply an idiot.
So what is it that makes Spike a "rebel"?
True, he doesn't fit the mold of your average vampire--fighting
along side the slayer and all--but I believe his rebellion goes
much deeper than that.
From the episode "Fool For Love", we learn that Spike
considers himself to be "Love's Bitch", and he lives
up to this title every chance he can get.
He gets his feeling stomped on my Cecily's little pointy shoe...
so what does he do? He gets himself killed. But what do you expect?
He is love's bitch, after all.
Dru cheats on him, so he gets royally drunk off his keester and
heads for Sunnydale--a town that he loathes. He's love's bitch,
gosh darnit!
Buffy tells him that the only time he ever had a chance with her
was when she was unconscious... well isn't that typical? So, being
love's bitch, Spike goes for the shot gun... only this time he
isn't able to let his own insecurities govern his actions.
When Spike stopped allowing his insecurities about love and women
to govern his actions, he became a rebel against his own belief
that his problems resulted from rejection from women.
Let's take a look at the Spike we see at the beginning of "The
Gift". He says that he knows that Buffy will never love him.
Now, when he realized this, did the world suddenly come to an
end? Did he become less of a person, simply because a girl didn't
like him? Nope! In fact he appears to be extremely greatful for
the fact that Buffy treats him like a man. Buffy doesn't love
him, and Spike's ok! It still sucks, but it's ok.
Looking at the delinquent vamps, I think that Spike has a valid
point. In the vampire world, they are not rebels. Causing general
mayhem is what's expected. There's nothing rebellious about it.
Is Dawn a rebel because she brags about stealing lipstick--nope,
she's just being an idiot (please don't kill me! I love Dawn to
pieces, but she was doing some really really stupid things in
that episode). Doing stupid things in order to fit in with the
"in crowd" is not being a rebel, it's being an idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Viewer Rebellion -- RH, 11:30:48 11/01/01 Thu
"He says that he knows that Buffy will never love him. Now,
when he realized this, did the world suddenly come to an end?
Did he become less of a person, simply because a girl didn't like
him? Nope! In fact he appears to be extremely greatful for the
fact that Buffy treats him like a man. Buffy doesn't love him,
and Spike's ok! It still sucks, but it's ok."
La-la-la! I can't hear you! La-la-la! Buffy WILL love him! She
MUST!!! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Sheri, 11:47:23 11/01/01 Thu
Don't worry... I'm not saying that Buffy would never love Spike.
I'm just saying that it's a good thing that Spike could come to
that conclusion (which from the look on Buffy's face may or may
not have been an accurate conclusion) without doing the whole
"I'm love's bitch" routine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Dedalus, 14:14:33 11/01/01
Thu
Very insightful, S. My thoughts on the matter never actually got
that far. It seems both he and Angel have perhaps made it past
that annoying "I need to be rewarded for everything I do"
phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Ramo, 14:55:36 11/01/01
Thu
I think Spike going out of that "Love's Bitch" thing
may actually allow Buffy to love him, since I think it's made
him more normal and less obsessive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spike is still "love's bitch."
-- Dariel, 22:09:02 11/01/01 Thu
I think that Spike's actions are still governed by "What
will Buffy think of me?" and not by his own compass/feelings/wants.
Maybe his part in the "Oh, Grow Up" theme is to finally
get past that.
As for Buffy loving him, well....If we do get there, I bet the
ride is going to be very bumpy. Mean Joss!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike is still "love's
bitch." -- Morgane, 12:14:28 11/02/01 Fri
Hey guys, can I asked you something!
I'm not so bad in english (even if it's not my first langage)
and I usually understand everything when I watch Buffy, but what
the hell, "love's bitch" means! I didn't look but I'm
sure it's not in the french-english dictionary!
The first time I heard it in Lovers walk, I thought Spike was
saying that he loves a bitch (Drusilla who had cheated on him)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Definition to being "Love's
Bitch" -- Sheri, 12:30:33 11/02/01 Fri
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that being someone's
"bitch" comes from prison lingo. How to phrase this?
Well, let's say there are two guys in a prison cell. We'll call
them "Bubba" and "Tiny". One day, Bubba says
to Tiny, "I'll make your life a wonderful thing, but you'll
have to do something for me." And then Bubba lists a miriad
of things that Tiny has to do for Bubba (both sexual and non-sexual).
In exchange, Bubba promises to not allow the other guys in the
prison to gang rape Tiny. In prison lingo, Tiny is now Bubba's
"bitch".
Ok, so to Spike, Love is a lot like Bubba. Being without Love
sucks to Spike--no companion can make a person very open to attack.
But just like Bubba, Love can be a little rough on poor Spike.
He keeps falling in love with women who ultimately treat him like
crap (Cecily brakes his heart, Dru cheats on him, Buffy rejects
him--hopefully, for Spike's sake, the Buffy situation has changed),
but the idea of being open to the dangers of the prison population--i.e.
the world--by himself is even more frightening.
Did that help, Morgane? Or did I confuse you even more?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Rebellion (spoilers for "all the way" "fool
for love" and "the gift") -- maddog, 15:10:49 11/01/01
Thu
I wouldn't call her an idiot...I'd call her a typical teenager.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought that they were one and the same :) NT --
Rynn01, 20:58:08 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primal Misogyny revisited -- yabyumpan, 11:16:24 11/01/01 Thu
I'm posting this as a reply to Rahael's Essentializm and social
Darwinizm post on the Primal Mysoyny thred, my comp wouldn't let
me post it as a reply
RE:"Do apes exibit signs of misogyny" actually they
do, it's recenly been discovered that Chimpanzes, those lovely
sweet apes, take part in gang rape, even from their own troop,
they are also capable of gang warfare and murder so maybe "Primal
Misogyny" isn't so far off the mark. Personally, I prefere
to think I'm decended from Bonoboes(wrong spelling, sorry), they
just seem to shag all day and if there is a dispute the females
step in with some hugs and lovin'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Primal Misogyny revisited -- JM, 13:32:53 11/01/01 Thu
I'm not quite as bothered as others by the concept of a primal
aggression aimed at women. Some of our nature is biologically
influence, and I buy that some of the common differences between
men and women are as well. At one point in a very distant past
dominating women was probably an important part of protecting
bloodlines. There's a reason why sex and violence are kinkily
linked in many people's minds. That said, it's a tiny, tiny part
of the make up. There are many, many other impulses influencing
action, and the much more important layer of culture that downplays
and rechannels all our primal urges: from hunger to fear to aggression.
Billy turned off rational thought and all the other competing
urges and left the men with only one overriding urge. I could
find this scenario plausible and not degrading to men or humans
in general. Just an opinion though, I wonder if we'll ever really
know if we're driven or programmed. Nature or nurture. Can understand
why the issue is hot button though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Non-sense, some female apes kill the babies of others, both
genders can be "bad" -- Bob Bob, 18:34:15 11/01/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 11:55:19
11/01/01 Thu
There are lots of posts which adress the following issue, and
I sort of figured the best way to put in my opinion would be by
starting a whole new thread, rather than responding to half a
dozen already established ones.
Giles, unlike what some people have been infering, is not a sorcerer.
He's a watcher... he's well versed in occult subjects, but not
in occult practice. Yes, he dabbled a bit with some friends in
his youth. That was a form of rebellion, though, not honest-to-god
study and practice.
Giles knows about certain magical sects, texts, and rituals. He's
able to make use of some of those rituals, but that means little
to nothing. Dawn was able to use a ressurection spell. Jonathan,
before he became an aparently gifted sorcerer, was capable of
casting an augmentation spell.
What can be gleaned from this information, is that certain rituals
carry power in and of themselves, and will work regardless of
who uses them. Giles has no real powers... just knowledge.
Giles can undo certain witchcraft spells (The Witch) only because
the counterspells function like computer programs... anyone with
the right know-how can pull them off. He can preform a binding
ritual and speak to spirits (The Zeppo) because those are age-old
rituals which possess their own power. Giles isn't capable of
restoring a vampire's soul, casting paralyzation spells, teleporting
people, or raising the dead. Those sorts of things require natural
talent, which he does not have.
Anyway... just wanted to offer my view on the subject, because
people keep refering to Giles like he's an accomplished magician,
when he's not... he just knows about things magicians can go.
But then, this is just how I've viewed the information we've been
presented about Giles. Other people have obviously come to their
own conclusions.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- grifter, 12:03:49
11/01/01 Thu
I guess it depends on how you define "sorcerer".
1. It is enough to just have the knowledge on how to use (some)
spells. (Giles, Dawn) or 2. You have to have a certain "talent"
for magic. (Willow, Tara)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- RH, 12:13:33
11/01/01 Thu
"Giles has no real powers... just knowledge."
Knowledge IS power.
Anyhoo, quick question - are most people here of the opinion that
magick is teachable, (anyone can do it), or a "gift",
(there are some magicks that only the "gifted" can perform)?
If you are "gifted", is it nature/TPTB that choose to
gift you, or is it genetically passed down, (ie. Would Willow's
mother also possess powers)?
Just curious...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Magic and Chess -- Humanitas, 12:30:27 11/01/01 Thu
I think it's like playing chess.
Oh, I'd better explain that, hadn't I? ;)
Ok, I know how to play chess. I know the rules, I understand the
object of the game, how the pieces move, I can even castle when
I need to. But I would never say that "I play chess."
My brain doesn't work the way a seroius chess-player's does. I
can dabble, but I'll never get beyond the first round of a tournament.
Similarly, Giles understands how magic works. He can say the words,
perform the rituals. But he doesn't have The Gift.
So if Giles' ability with magic is analogous to my chess-playing
ability, does that make Willow Bobby Fischer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'll go with Humanitas. -- SingedCat, 14:52:45
11/01/01 Thu
I'm not sure a 'gift' for something is anything more than a natural
inclination which you then pursue. I don't think magic is any
different from that in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OK, spooky coincidence time. -- Humanitas,
15:36:59 11/01/01 Thu
So, today, for no reason I can think of, I post about chess. And
now I'm watching Killed By Death, in which Xander makes refernce
to The Seventh Seal:
Xander: Ooo, if he [Death] asks you to play chess, don't even
do it. The guy's, like, a whiz.
To heck with Bobby Fischer, is Willow Death?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Bogus! *cough* Whoops, wrong version.
Ahem. -- Solitude1056, 18:21:00 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Best 2 out of 3? -- RH, 06:23:47
11/02/01 Fri
What happens if you play "Twister" with Death? (I don't
imagine he's very limber... LOL!)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gift... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 12:37:26 11/01/01 Thu
I'd say that magic is a gift, but not one bestowed by the Powers
That Be. I like to think of it as a talent... like painting, or
poetry. Lots of people can do it, but only some of them reallllllyyyy
have it in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- Deeva,
12:54:50 11/01/01 Thu
I hadn't really thought about this until now. And what I came
up with is that maybe magick it is "teachable". The
way I see it is that it's a bit like being a genius or prodigy.
Doesn't happen to everybody, just some, and others can only take
it so far. One can argue that certain prodigies are nurtured and
given the opportunity very early on so that they have accomplished
what many would view as "genius". I think that Mozart
might be a good example. I don't deny that Mozart is brilliant
because he is. But his father saw that Mozart had an inclination
towards music at a very early age and nutured it. He only accelerated
what might have happened inevitabley, that Mozart would become
a great figure in music and history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"?
-- Solitude1056, 14:46:33 11/01/01 Thu
I agree in part with what you're positing, Deeva, and also with
the idea that some folks have what is colloquially called, in
the US, a 'knack' for things. I'd say that Giles does have the
knack for magick, as evidenced by a number of things he's done,
and his easy manuevering through its world. But having a knack
doesn't mean one also has the passion for it, which is what gives
you the 99% perspiration to achieve a high level. I have a knack
for art, as does my sister, and both of us were trained at an
early age by our grandmother, also a marvelous artist. But while
I can sit down and draw plenty, I just never had the passion for
it that my sister has. That's why I can do more than the average
bear but hardly as much as someone who's put hir whole force behind
it.
I don't think when a person starts cultivating their natural knacks
makes a difference - there are artists, writers, actors, teachers,
sculptors who didn't start such cultivation until mid-life or
sometimes later and are still head and shoulders above the rest
of us. It's the force one brings to bear, and the amount one invests
in the action. Giles' identity and self-worth are garnered by
his knowledge of various arts - from the martial to the magickal
- while Willow's are more clearly contained under the heading
of 'magickal' and 'computery' ... I'd say technical but I've never
seen her build anything, and technical can also connote engineering
like Fred or carpentry/construction like Xander. Each person finds
their knack(s), but beyond that, one has to find a knack that
one loves above all else. For Giles, I don't think it was magick,
even if it comes easily to him on some levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I would add that Giles seems to have a
special respect for magick... -- A8, 18:47:28 11/01/01 Thu
...that makes him reluctant to use it except when absolute necessity
requires it. Some people have such respect for a certain skill,
craft or art, that they try not to sully it with anything less
than 100% commitment(even when they possess a natural talent).
Two modern examples that come to mind are Jerry Garcia and George
Harrison. Jerry Garcia was a naturally talented pedal steel guitar
player, but chose not to record with the instrument after the
early seventies because he could not devote the amount of practice
time he considered necessary to do the art justice. George Harrison,
though a tasteful lead guitarist, eschewed playing straight up
lead after the emergence of Beck, Clapton and Hendrix, and chose
instead to develope a new skill as a slide guitarist.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- Earl
Allison, 04:01:13 11/02/01 Fri
I think you need both to truly excel, but that knowledge and time
and make up for raw ability.
ANYONE can do magic, there's no way ANYONE is going to tell me
Johnathan has a natural aptitude for this stuff :) No matter his
actions in "Superstar."
However, someone with serious natural ability (like Willow over,
say, Tara) will excel and progress more rapidly -- and as we see
with Willow now, that might be a BAD thing, as learning and experience
bring more maturity, maturity Willow seems to lack.
It's like (IMHO) people with naturally fast metabolisms versus
those with slower ones. Those with slower metabolisms can stay
as slim and active, but it requires more work on their part over
those who have naturally faster ones. One group works harder,
but with that work they CAN be as good as the others.
Personally, Giles COULD be as powerful as Willow, but he'd need
to devote far more time and energy to it, which would detract
from being a Watcher.
Look at Angel -- he's shown an ability to work magic, as has Wesley.
Neither would seem to have a natural aptitude in the arts, but
both have worked some serious spells.
So knowledge is needed to teach, but natural talent goes a long
way towards levelling the playing field for the less experienced.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"?
-- celticross, 09:51:57 11/02/01 Fri
Hmmm...good theory. A couple of other examples to back that up:
Dawn successfully casting a spell to raise her mother's body,
Jonathan's "magic bone" spell in Life Serial. You can't
tell me magick requires that much when Jonathan could hardly say
the Latin right. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- Mazumdar, 12:43:00
11/01/01 Thu
I think it was established early on that Giles was capable of
manipulating magic in a fairly advanced way. Perhaps he does not
have the level of innate ability that Willow does, but "sorcerer"
hasn't been given a specific definition in the show, so there's
nothing concrete to contradict the proposition that Giles might
be a sorcerer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- maddog, 15:04:08
11/01/01 Thu
I think most of the people are just phrasing it wrong...I think
they're trying to defend Giles's position on Willow's overuse
of magic. What I believe most people are trying to say is that
Giles has more experience around magic(remember he was a watcher
from very early on) and therefore knows more about the EFFECTS
of all types of magicks and knows that the kind Willow is using
has serious side effects and/or consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Think of Giles as John Constantine from DC's Hellblazer
-- Trelane, 18:31:23 11/01/01 Thu
nt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More like a reformed ConJob -- Whisper2AScream, 12:49:53
11/02/01 Fri
John's still pretty nasty and sneaky at times. Giles is a bit
milder than that (with a few exceptions here and there), plus
he's better with physical combat than ol' Johnny. Experiance-wise,
he is like Constantine, though think John's a bit more powerful
with magick. Personality-wise, Spike's the closest match to JC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Since the Dark Ages -- Malandanza, 22:44:28 11/01/01 Thu
Giles: (calming down) I'm gonna feel like hell in the morning.
Ethan: Relax. Enjoy the night. We're just a couple of sorcerers.
The night is still our time. Time of magic. A New Man
And, of course, back in The Dark Age, Giles tells us about his
demon-summoning youth:
Giles: I was twenty-one, studying history at Oxford. And, of course,
the occult by night. I hated it. The tedious grind of study, the...
overwhelming pressure of my destiny. I dropped out, I went to
London... (exhales) I fell in with the worst crowd that would
have me. We practiced magicks. Small stuff for pleasure or gain.
And Ethan and I discovered something... bigger.
Buffy: Eyghon.
Giles: Yes. One of us would, um... (nervously pours a drink) go
into a deep sleep, and the others would, uh, summon him. It was
an extraordinary high! (smiles nervously) God, we were fools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) -- RH, 06:54:02
11/02/01 Fri
...the fact that he wasn't knocked unconscious in the last episode!
(I'm still not completely convinced that all of this season isn't
happening in an alternate dimension - Willow bad? Tara angry?
Spike good? Giles conscious?!?!)
I was very surprised at Giles' competency in defending himself
and Janis against the vamps - I don't think we've EVER seen him
this active! Obviously there's something to be said for the ferocity
of a parent "protecting their young" (Giles motivated
to protect Dawn), but he also showed exceptional skill in fighting
- something that we have never before witnessed from him.
Giles usually lasts 12 seconds in any fight situation before he
is knocked out, yet, here he not only holds his own but is able
to cause some substantial damage! We saw some impressive (for
Giles) martial arts skill - kicks, throws, punches, etc. - and
the way he tackled two vamps at once? The finesse with which he
caught the stake Buffy threw to him? Wow! When did Giles learn
all that? One would think he'd been training for the last 3 months
if not for the fact that he was knocked unconscious in "Flooded".
Perhaps this is the pent-up "Ripper" side of him coming
out?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) --
OnM, 07:12:57 11/02/01 Fri
Giles has exhibited good fighting skills in the past, but you're
right, there usually is an element of 'Ripper' that needs to come
out before he does so.
The gender may be different, but think of Selena Kyle/Catwoman
for an analogy (at least in the Tim Burton take on the mythology).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) --
Kimberly, 07:31:19 11/02/01 Fri
In addition to the "parent protecting his/her young"
factor (possibly the strongest force in the universe), it may
also be some repressed anger coming out. Although he's thrilled
beyond belief that Buffy's alive, and apparently well, he's still
been pulled back out of the life in England he's been making for
himself (and, yes, I just caught the parallel between him and
Buffy on that), and his feeling trapped may be giving him the
subconscious permission to fight effectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ultimate Existential Scooby
Project - The Proposal -- Dedalus, 16:11:38 11/01/01 Thu
Well, and a one, and a two, and a way we go -
Well, the Ultimate Project I guess might be funding and constructing
a grand dining hall for Buffy Symposiums, but you get the idea.
Me, myself, and several other posters were discussing this a week
or so ago in chat, and since some interest was expressed, this
might actually be a workable thing.
Now that all of you are salivating with interest, the project
would involve ... well, in its most basic and purest form, this
forum, only in book form. The posts would be longer and better,
of course, but that's the basic idea. The tentative working title
for said project is Buffy 101, as opposed to other suggestions
such as The Case for Buffy, or The Complete Idiots Guide to BTVS,
or Chicken Soup for Angel's Soul. Buffy 101 will do for now.
What I'm proposing is an Existential Scooby Publication. A no
holds barred, bad to the bone, beans don't burn on the grill analytical
critique of all things Buffy. Well, maybe not all things, but
you get the idea. It would be a collection of academic style essays
on Buffy, not necessarily just philosophy, but basically a collection
of literary criticism from the academics, psuedo or otherwise,
that haunt these parts. It would be like The International Journal
of Buffy Studies, only better. The running joke around here is
burned out printers, and this would be one way to alleviate that
problem.
I am beginning to get an idea about how all this could break down,
but I need to know who is on board and who isn't first. The interest
may be far too much or just not enough. I have talked to Masq,
and she doesn't have a problem, not to mention some other parties.
The absolute best case scenario, we actually get an endorsement
from Joss and Mutant Enemy, though that is certainly not anything
to be counted on. And when all is said and done, since this is
non-fiction, we probably wouldn't need it anyhow. But we may have
a way in to them that is best left obscure for the moment. Obviously,
since we will be dealing with a variety of authors, this could
spin into an out-of-control legal nightmare quite quickly. There
are already those of you among us researching such problems. Still,
the best Buffy ideas I've heard are on this forum, and the Buffy
fans seem to be into this sort of thing, especially the college
ones. I believe Buffy is a great show and an important one, and
like any great myth, it will gain much from competent interpreters.
Buffy 101 will not be exclusively philosophy, as I have mentioned.
Basically, I doubt anyone here besides Masq would be competent
enough to do it anyway. :-) No, this will cover a whole hosts
of topics to your choosing, hopefully in at least a semi-coherent
manner. Everyone here is reasonably bright and articulate, but
this is where it all comes down. This will seperate the men from
the boys, the Slayers from the Slayerettes. The format will probably
be like the ones airing over at Fictionary Corner, only again,
better and longer. Although I admit, I'm sending in a couple of
mine from there that are already long. :-)
I know I'm on board here, and I think Sheri and mundi are as well.
We will need at least six or seven other writers here, each composing
roughly three or four essays each, probably around five or six
typed pages at least. I was wondering if we should do this theme
by theme or season by season or whatever, but I think we should
just let each author have a little section, and a running theme
or tone should present itself. And these are not going to be any
of those sissy five paragraph essay jobs you did in middle school,
these are going to have to be Kaboom level works. Like on our
forum scale. Kaboom. So rich in philosophical goodness, the reader's
head implodes. Literally. I mean, where there was once a head,
after reading these essays, there will only remain a bloody stump.
They should be academic enough to be serious, but mainstream enough
so that your average local yokel Buffy fan might want to pick
it up.
Again, none of this is set up yet, except in its most embryonic
stages, and it could fall apart at any stage of the game. Publication
is of course very dicey on any project. But this is not impossible,
and we may have a few tricks up our sleeves before it's all over.
Needless to say, this could be really, really cool. Best case
scenario, we get Joss' approval and go down in the history books
along with Buffy. Worst case, we just develop some kick arse essays
for Fictionary Corner.
Let me know who is interested down below. I hate to start imposing
qualifications, but you do need to be a competent writer, needless
to say. Any backgrounds in English or editing or journalism a
plus. I will do a series of instructions from here on out to help
guide this thing. Each author at the very least will probably
need to do an essay before any book proposal can be gotten together
for a possible publisher. It's still being organized, so any helpful
hints would be ... well, helpful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wow, that's scary symmetry, Dedalus! (see above) --
mm, 16:20:58 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wow, that's scary symmetry, Dedalus! (see above)
-- Dedalus, 17:33:59 11/01/01 Thu That is freaky. Okay, this would
be an extension of that then. A Buffyversity Publication. Sort
of like our very own literary journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Lucifer_Sponge, 16:51:34 11/01/01 Thu I'd be interested in
taking a crack at it. Though to be far, and truely honest, I'm
not sure I'd be able to come up with something worthy of such
a work. I'm willing to try, though.
I'm not sure what topics I'd want to cover, but something Tara-related
would be severely fun for me. I'm also interested in taking some
sort of look at witchcraft or even magic in general in the BTVS
world... possibly by linking it with related culture, philosophy,
and mythology within the real world. Though I do remember you
weren't too thrilled with that idea the last time it was presented.
But yeah... I'm willing. If it gets to a point where you simply
have too many offers, I'll probably back down to make room for
some brighter individuals. There are a lot of people on this board
who can really blow people's minds to a much greater extent than
I ever could, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Something like
this deserves the best of the best of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The
Proposal -- Dedalus, 17:28:50 11/01/01 Thu Okay, so I wasn't too
thrilled with the idea of magic in the real world last time. I
don't know. My main issue with that would be the taking of a work
that is meant to be nothing but metaphorical and giving it a literal
inflection that was never intended. Still, if it could be academ-y
enough, who knows. What with the world the way it is, I just have
this not-so-latent horror of all things literal in the myth department.
But Tara is a bigger topic than that.
This is what I want everyone who is even marginally interested
to do, though. Just weigh in, now, and feel free to weed yourself
out later.
The best of the best of us, indeed. Sort of like Top Gun, only
we're writing essays instead of flying F-14's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project
- The Proposal -- JM, 17:41:10 11/01/01 Thu i would love to participate.
I know that I'm not a very regular poster, but I've been bursting
with essay length commentary lately. I've got a couple of topics
that have been comsuming me lately: some characters I'd love to
talk about Wesley and Giles especially, and also Anya. Topics
are the significance of consequences and the inability of current
generations to handle a discussion of serious issues without an
infusion of irony. I'd also like to do an exploration of family
issues and abuse. Although I don't have any personal background
that gives me insight, I'm facinated by the dramatic attractiveness
of issues that would make all of us ill in the real world.
However, I don't know that I have the requisite academic background.
I think my writing skills are more than competent, but my background
is a BA in History, and I purposely shied away from literature
and philosophy. Tell me if you're intersted in my contribution.
Also, I would be interested in exploring the methods ME has used
to grow their characters. No one is who they were first season,
or even last season, and the effect is phenomenal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project
- The Proposal -- Dedalus, 17:55:42 11/01/01 Thu "Bursting
with essay length commentary lately"?
Sounds pretty good to me. The family stuff would be nifty, and
we have yet to get that much commentary on Wesley and Giles. Character
development has been amazing.
As for the prerequisite stuff, that is not going to be a major
issue. I would like everyone to at least have a college degree,
but it's not a major thing. That's why we're doing this, unlike
Slayage that says everyone writing about Buffy needs a PhD. Hell,
if someone is the greatest writer in the world, nobody here is
really going to care if they just have a GED, you know? Many of
our best and brightest seem to be self-educated, and to a major
degree, because you know, you have to keep up your education,
even after graduation.
We'll see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Humanitas, 17:56:03 11/01/01 Thu Well, count me in, but I'm
not sure what I want to write on at the moment. I sort of wing
it from week to week, working on whatever inspires me.
Hmmmm.... now I gotta go think about this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- LadyStarlight, 18:14:33 11/01/01 Thu I'd like to be involved
in some way with this. Is there an opening for proofreader/editor??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Count me in as a proofreader, maybe essayer --
zargon, 21:53:43 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'll go you one better, and maybe a bit more manageable.
-- Solitude1056, 18:17:39 11/01/01 Thu I've edited several independent
magazines, and when I heard from Liq that you folks were discussing
this a week or so ago, I kept thinking about it - just been too
busy to post the notion. Curiously, I started a draft of such
this very afternoon. Synchronicity abounds, indeed.
The word I got was just what you've posted: a book of some sort.
However, based on my experiences, I'd suggest a quarterly magazine
instead - not only would it be a bit more manageable (and less
intimidating for folks not used to the idea of high academia & what-not)
but also quite a bit more feasible in terms of distribution and,
uh, actually having it not only pay for itself but also potentially
pay the writers. Okay, not by much at first, since the first go-round
would pay back the editor for shelling out the money and I was
about to start explaining it but since I'd guess not everyone
here is a businessperson, I won't belabor the way it works, here...
but it does work, and it also helps that I've still got tips and
leads on who would distribute such a thing.
See, magazines aren't like books. Magazines we print and get together
on our own, and then send to the distribution companies - they
don't care whether we spell everything right or number the pages
backwards. If it sells, they'll buy more. (Some of them don't
even care about that, they'll just buy a basic amount - 300 to
600 copies, usually - flat off simply as a means to offer strange
and little-known magazines in their distribution line.)
The best size would be roughly 5-10 articles, or about 40 or 50
pages total. Artwork is simple, since we only need to write Joss
& company and ask about royalties on a low-level magazine, and
then get permission to reuse UPN or WB publicity. If we knew we'd
have a distribution of several hundred thousand, there might be
bigger bucks involved. A distribution of a few hundred? Naw. No
sweat. Okay, so that's the cover art. I doubt there'd be advertising
since a nationally distributed magazine of low-distribution just
isn't appealing in a marketing scheme... and advertising is the
*real* bucks in magazines. No advertising makes it rougher to
pay each author as much as we'd obviously all like to get. (But
whatever, a few bucks is small pleasure compared to discovering
your article selling in a Borders somewhere in Wichita. ;-)
The idea of a quarterly might be more feasible than a book since
it also reduces the issues of rights, permissions, and payment
(if any). Basically, first rights go to the magazine, but copyrights
are held by the individual authors. (That translates to roughly
- very roughly - if someone xeroxes a page, it's a violation of
the magazine's copyright, but if someone types up your words and
uses it without the magazine's presentation, it's a violation
of your right since the magazine's design isn't involved.) I doubt
it'd be an issue but in case, there ya go - also good to know
that in case anyone else says, hey, we read your article & want
to reprint it somewhere else. That's a lot less complicated than
a book, where publishers are going to approach it in a more complex
matter, and are also going to stress ahead of time as to expected
sales and what-not.
I also figured that a quarterly would mean there'd be room for
folks like our intrepid essayists to pull out all the stops...
but we might also look to some of our thought-provoking non-philosophers
to tackle a topic and present a round-table essay. A cross between
a conversation over dinner and the posting board here, if you
will. And on top of that, my suggestion from past experience says
that idea of a theme for each issue is an excellent one. Planning
the themes in advance also lets writers know so they can start
working on an idea way in advance, and send it in with plenty
of time for the review group for that issue.
It'd also mean that if someone had a great short essay but didn't
want to flesh it out (or wasn't up to it), they could either contact
other folks for a round-table essay... or just leave it and submit
it as-is. Naturally, spelling and grammar would be important,
but otherwise, whatever. (Hm, maybe we'll rope anom or one or
two other folks into being last-minute readers to check for minor
spelling/grammar problems, but it's not a major stress.)
Two things about this, then: I'd suggest essays would be reviewed
by three or four people who aren't writing for that edition. I'd
cull the names & info off the essay & send it around, and then
put the critiques or responses back with the essay and send it
to the author (that way no one can say, "I got told No because
they knew it was me," or whatever, just because I'm fair
like that). On top of that, doing the first edition with no expectation
of profit means that we'll have seed money for the second-edition,
and the profits of the 2nd will pay the writers from the first
- by word. That may sound funky to those of you new to such, but
that's the fairest method, especially if it's a roundtable discussion
amongst six people... just go by word, five cents per or whatever.
Yes, it's arbitrary, but failing a better method... unless someone's
got one, out there (and if the 'zine did turn a profit, having
it worked out now would prevent major disagreements later).
The business side gets a little more complex for other reasons,
but I've explained enough here, I think (and probably rambled,
too). But I think the writers here could way kick ass and it'd
be way popular... it's just a matter of:
1. decide on a theme 2. get volunteers for the review group 3.
submit, review, and select essays 4. lay it out 5. determine size
(and either cut or add) a rough rule of thumb now of 40 pages
gives me a basis for getting quotes on printing & distribution
as well as figuring out reasonable cover price 6. send to printers
7. ship to distributors
And lastly, no, I wouldn't recommend subscriptions. Unless a bunch
of you are going to show up at the editor's house to help stamp
and address, I'd say no-go... except for paying authors with a
copy (which is a hassle but not impossible). Make it over-the-counter
only - there's benefits from sending direct but it's a huge time
issue and that's just way too much hassle. (If you're wondering,
I wouldn't mind doing editor, but that means I won't decide whose
stuff gets added or deleted - I'd rather a review group take over
that, with Masq having final say on any controversial articles
or themes. And again with the themes, I'd suggest nominations
from the board, with final choice by Masq, natch.)
See, and that way, Dedalus, you're freed up to write your heart
out, along with d'Herblay, Mundusmundi and OnM. Hm. Maybe we should
have one quarterly for each of you, and then another one for the
rest of us mere mortals. Heh, just kidding... I think!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Possible title? -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 18:23:03
11/01/01 Thu A minor suggestion:
"The University of California/Sunnydale Quarterly Review?"
Of course, the UC system would not permit this, even if they did
not have a Sunnydale campus -- but it does capture a nice academic
tone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My thoughts, and also another possible title.
-- OnM, 06:52:06 11/02/01 Fri As usual, leave it to Sol to come
up with a practical means of realizing the germ of a good idea.
Big opposable digit extended upwards towards the quarterly mag
idea from yours truly!
Obviously, count me in, although I have some doubts about whether
my sort of natural gonzo writing style would blend into a scholarly
series of articles, but even if I could only contribute occasionally,
I would certainly be glad to help with reading over submitted
texts and offering pre-publication thoughts thereon.
As to a possible title, I think it's important to make a clear
reference to how this all got started, so I suggest:
The ATPo Quarterly ( the actual font might be the one Masq uses
on her home page )
With a subtitle of:
The Common Philosophers Buffyverse Journal
I prefer 'ATPo' instead of 'ATPoBtVS' because 1) It rolls off
the tongue more smoothly, and adding a melodic quality to a title
never hurts, IMO, and 2) 'All Things Philosopical on' with the
end left hanging suggests the sense of open-endedness and variety
our writings tend to illustrate.
As to the subtitle, The use of the word 'common' sets us deliberately
apart from the 'doctoral' category that is already being covered,
and it is my understanding that this is what Ded and others are
trying to achieve. There is also the small degree of irony involved
in that for many people, 'common' and 'philosophy' are mutually
exclusive concepts, and of course we wish to prove otherwise.
'Buffyverse' is succinct. 'Journal' suggests an ongoing series
or journey, which is the idea.
So anyway, there ya be. Whaddaya think?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Au contraire, your stuff is perfect....
-- mundusmundi, 12:52:38 11/02/01 Fri And I'll tell you why: It
has personality. Seriously, look in most any magazine and you'll
find a personal "column" or two (an "As I see it"
section or equivalent). I see your writing as being along those
lines, and a welcome addition to the 'zine.
Good t