From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #147 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, April 18 2003 Volume 12 : Number 147 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: actual Robyn Hitchcock question shock horror. ["ross taylor" ] Doris/Cynthia Stevenson [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Pens and other objects of nerdly desire [Jeff Dwarf ] the legend of Jane the Timeline Chick (0% Phish, Skinny Puppy, or Buffy content) ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: Beer! Sake! Seattle! [Ken Weingold ] Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead [Jeff Dwarf ] Cats in the Cradle? [John Barrington Jones ] Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead [Ken Weingold ] Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead [Aaron Mandel ] Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead [Miles Goosens ] oh, that left-leaning CNN [Miles Goosens ] Re: Trachtenburg Family [Miles Goosens ] Re: Trachtenburg Family ["Sumiko Keay" ] Re: oh, that left-leaning CNN [Tom Clark ] Ermm... so now we know where one of them is... ["Rex.Broome" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 00:25:01 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: Re: actual Robyn Hitchcock question shock horror. tc-- >Buh...er...wah? I'll admit I'm not the most perceptive guy in the world, but I've been on this list since almost the first day, and only now am I learning that Robyn is an agnostic bisexual. Did I miss a meeting? I apologize for my hasty message earlier. I know nothing about Robyn Hitchcock's personal life. My post was just a shorthand for speculation based on the work, & I should have made that clearer. It was the sort of speculation that gets flung around about either over-hyped celebrities or people long dead. A more useful post would have focused on how much his work does deal w/ androgyny. I think the business of atheism in the songs has been discussed here, but I could have made it clearer in my post that I felt he goes back & forth, & again that it's speculation. The sort of talk you'd have in a bar, no "IMHO"s in sight. Ross Taylor also in the camp that believes "everyone's a little bit bi" Need a new email address that people can remember Check out the new EudoraMail at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 21:53:42 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: Mr. Xandman >Cynthia first came to my attention as Bob Newhart's adult daughter >on BOB, but she was also in a fine TV talk show parody called MY >TALK SHOW that proceeded her role on BOB. She was Hope in HOPE AND >GLORIA, and most recently she can be seen as Frankie Muniz' mom in >AGENT CODY BANKS Don't forget her role in "The Player," including an unlikely topless scene. ;) Speaking of oppressive *dd*rs, I just got through watching "Will & Grace & Her Nipples." Sheesh. Eb Shots of the day: http://home.earthlink.net/~elbroome/stones.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~elbroome/goldbox.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~elbroome/moorners.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:27:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Doris/Cynthia Stevenson Eb wrote: > >Cynthia first came to my attention as Bob Newhart's adult > >daughter on BOB, but she was also in a fine TV talk show > >parody called MY TALK SHOW that proceeded her role on BOB. > >She was Hope in HOPE AND GLORIA, and most recently she can > >be seen as Frankie Muniz' mom in AGENT CODY BANKS > > Don't forget her role in "The Player," including an unlikely > topless scene. ;) Or her spots on Cheers as Norm's secretary who was in love with him. Her singing "Seasons in the Sun" has to be one of the most tragi-comic scenes in all American sitcomia. [I paraphrase] Sam: Would you ever date someone who drives a Volare? Doris: Are you kidding? I drive one myself. Sam: I gotta get my car back... > Speaking of oppressive *dd*rs, I just got through watching > "Will & Grace & Her Nipples." Sheesh. Isn't complaining about oppressive udders on "W&G" like complaining about Celine Dion's haircut after being subjected to one of her records? ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 06:34:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Pens and other objects of nerdly desire "Rex.Broome" wrote: > Jeff D: > >>Granted [ST:TNG] does lack the homoerotio-homophobic energy > >>of the WWE. > > Yeah, you gotta go back to the original series for the real > ambiguously gay sparks. TNG, though... didn't we all suspect > that Geordi was always deactivating Data and hauling him into > the Jeffries Tubes for some unscheduled diagnostics. Ummm... > erotic? No, not really. But somewhat homo. Not Geordi -- Wesley. After all, he did go to good schools.... Even so though, no ST ever had the homophobic part of the equation, so it never quite had the potent boy-on-boy-action meets kill-all-faggots conundrum that pro wrestling oozes with. ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:26:59 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead At 01:54 PM 4/17/2003 -0700, Kenneth Johnson wrote: >regarding bi-sexuality: I too recall an interview where Robyn mentions >having "experimented at school" and that's all. I believe it was within >liner notes for some ryko reissue. But doesn't the U.K. school system force every boy to have a homosexual experience? :-) I'll agree with Rex that Robyn would probably agree in principle to sexuality being a continuum rather than an either/or choice, but I get just about zero hits on the gaydar (not that my gaydar set functions with 100% reliability) from his music. At this point, I think people better be ready to produce a "Robyn fondled my schlong" anecdote, because I think this is a pretty slender reed (no pun intended) otherwise. Speaking of non-functioning gaydar: can anyone here tell me when Bob Mould came out/was outed? Husker Du was one of those acts I followed regularly, and their era was the one where I had the most leisure time and voraciously consumed every half-decent music mag. Yet I remember Melissa and I being blindsided by a music mag story in... '89? '90? that put Mould in a list of other gay artists, and did so not as a revelation or an accusation but casually, y'know, something like "On the 29th, gay artists such as Phranc, Melissa Etheridge, Jimmy Somerville, and Bob Mould performed at the Town of Cityville's 3rd Annual AIDS Awareness Bash." I mean, we weren't horrified or amazed to find this out (we hadn't suspected it either); the real shock was that somehow this had become common knowledge without either of us being common enough to know, or knowingly common, or whatever. So I'm still wondering when and how it became common knowledge... later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:50:19 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Beer! Sake! Seattle! Last week I had a nice visit in Seattle for a business conference. The Asian food I ate was spectacular. My cohorts and I found a restaurant called Dragonfish and ate there four times in four days. As someone on this list mentioned, the microbrew in Seattle was some of the best I've had in a long time. I recall many 22oz glasses of something called Mac and Jack, and a few other pints of another Washington-based microbrew which was really delicious. If you have any details about these beers, please let me have them. Dragonfish also served a sake made by a company in Oregon called Momokawa, and it was delicious. They wouldn't serve it warm, however - -- something I've never heard of before. Needles to say, my new goal is to find many bottles of Momokawa in my hometown, chill them, and drink them rapidly. I was also dazzled by Seattle's huge Asian market, Umajimaya (sp?). I have never seen to many live Dungeness crabs and geoducks in one place. I even saw a live King crab in a Chinese restaurant I had dinner in, and it was a staggeringly large orange crustacean. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:54:01 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: the legend of Jane the Timeline Chick (0% Phish, Skinny Puppy, or Buffy content) > > >I must have missed something. Who is Jane the Timeline Chick? > > > > Gotta keep up with the Gnat posts, Chris. > >Well, if she would write about Phish and Skinny Puppy more often.... Yeah, sorry about that... :P Jane the Timeline Chick is my friend whom I met on another mailing list. She is called the Timeline Chick because she maintains a timeline of every song Wilco have ever performed live, for tape-trading purposes. The timeline can be perused at http://wilcotimeline.gloriousnoise.com/ Jane also loves the Minus 5 and was even invited up on stage to play sleighbells with them during their most recent tour. I was over at her apartment last weekend and the place is virtually a Wilco shrine - autographed posters everywhere you look, heaps of Wilco-related videos, etc. etc. - and of course, lots of Minus 5 stuff too, including a setlist that Scott McCaughey autographed twice because he was really drunk. Jane, in other words, is a mythological figure: the avatar of the Uber-Fan. She's a really cool and nice person, though, so I don't want to mock her. She helped me move, got me fanclub tickets to see REM and Wilco in September, and is making me an Uncle Tupelo T-shirt (as I mentioned previously). But I am quite bemused by her. I think Wilco are, too. "Have you seen it [Jane's site]? It's INSANE!" - Jeff Tweedy, who wrote on one of Jane's posters, "Thanks for the insane work!" When we finish our cover of "Box Full of Letters" for the Wilco fan tribute, I will certainly post it somewhere so you can all hear it. :) n., Tweedy's part-time bitch _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:20:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > Speaking of non-functioning gaydar: can anyone here tell me when Bob > Mould came out/was outed? Here's what I remember, though it conflicts with your memory of it being '89... in late 1992 or early 1993, "If I Can't Change Your Mind" was released as the second or third single from the first Sugar album, and its video featured a bunch of Polaroids blowing all over the place. At the end, Bob holds one up to the camera that shows him sitting on a bed with another man, and he turns it around to show that the back says "This is not your parents' world." Around that time, maybe because of that video, Spin interviewed him and asked if he was gay. He said, "That's really not important." The interviewer responded, "Sure, it's not important, but we want to know." And Mould said, "Okay, yeah." allmusic.com confirms that Copper Blue came out in September 1992, and I'm pretty sure about the rest of this sequence of events. What I don't know, though, is whether he was already out in some quarters before then. On the other hand, I've seen his sexuality mentioned so rarely since than that I can believe it would have caught you by surprise, if your memory is actually of something that happened in 1995 or whatever. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:22:26 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Beer! Sake! Seattle! On Fri, Apr 18, 2003, Gene Hopstetter, Jr. wrote: > I was also dazzled by Seattle's huge Asian market, Umajimaya (sp?). > I have never seen to many live Dungeness crabs and geoducks in one > place. I even saw a live King crab in a Chinese restaurant I had > dinner in, and it was a staggeringly large orange crustacean. Some friends and I had dinner in a Chinese restaurant in NY Chinatown one night. They had fish in the tanks, and when we ordered a crab, they brought it out live to show us before they cooked it. All I could think of was from The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe when the cow they are about to eat wants to introduce itself and Zaphod says, "We'll meet the meat." - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:23:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead Miles Goosens wrote: > Speaking of non-functioning gaydar: can anyone here tell me > when Bob Mould came out/was outed? I think it was in the "If I Can't Change Your Mind" video (first Sugar album, so like 92). At the end of the video, he shows a Polaroid of himself and his [then?]boyfriend (and manager, I think) sitting next to each other in a very couply sort of pose. He then turns it over, and it said something to the effect of "this is not your parents' world." There may have been something earlier though, of course. ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:28:29 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: Cats in the Cradle? Hey all - I've had "Cats in the Cradle" in my head for weeks now. It must have something to do with my father's passing last month - no joke. Anyhoo, I downloaded a version today by Harry Chapin. Trouble is, it sounds nothing like what I'm hearing in my head. Were there several versions of this - did anyone else make it famous besides Mr. Chapin?? I know the only place I ever would've heard this song is the radio when I was a kid, so.... =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:30:09 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead On Fri, Apr 18, 2003, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > I think it was in the "If I Can't Change Your Mind" video (first > Sugar album, so like 92). At the end of the video, he shows a > Polaroid of himself and his [then?]boyfriend (and manager, I > think) sitting next to each other in a very couply sort of pose. > He then turns it over, and it said something to the effect of > "this is not your parents' world." There may have been something > earlier though, of course. That's Kevin. AFAIK they're still together. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:30:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > I think it was in the "If I Can't Change Your Mind" video (first > Sugar album, so like 92). At the end of the video, he shows a > Polaroid of himself and his [then?]boyfriend (and manager, I > think) sitting next to each other in a very couply sort of pose. Here we go: http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=118 He says it was around 1994 when people really started asking, and the article notes that he's been with Kevin O'Neill since 1990, so it was probably O'Neill in the photo. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:05:01 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: The God, the Gay and the Dead At 12:30 PM 4/18/2003 -0400, Aaron Mandel wrote: >On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > >> I think it was in the "If I Can't Change Your Mind" video (first >> Sugar album, so like 92). At the end of the video, he shows a >> Polaroid of himself and his [then?]boyfriend (and manager, I >> think) sitting next to each other in a very couply sort of pose. > >Here we go: > > http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=118 > >He says it was around 1994 when people really started asking, and the >article notes that he's been with Kevin O'Neill since 1990, so it was >probably O'Neill in the photo. As I rethink it (as per aaron's earlier message as well), it may well have been c. 1992-93 instead of '88-89 that Melissa and I read that piece and said to each other "Bob Mould is gay?"; I don't recall the associated interviews for WORKBOOK or BLACK SHEETS OF RAIN having anything to do with Bob's sexuality. And I never saw the video for "If I Can't Change Your Mind" even though I had MTV as of 1990 (and I was even a regular viewer of 120 MINUTES!), so if that was the event that (self)outed Bob, that would have escaped me as well. Thanks to aaron and Jeff for helping clear this up for me. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:14:25 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Ladies and gentleman, please welcome the Man with the Lightbulb H ead himself... James: >>I can clear a room with my impersonation of Billie Holiday singing >>"Summertime"... Never though this would happen, but here I am imagining Julian Cope impersonating Billie Holiday. ______ Quail: >>I think an important part of the creative mind >>is the ability to project, to empathize, to place one's consciousness >>somewhere else for a time. Robyn, coming as he does from a personal >>universe of surrealism and metaphor, is even more prone to this than usual. What I was trying to say, but better. Rarely does anyone write everything from their "own" perspective... that would get old after one record, let alone over a twenty-plus year career. It must suck, at least a little bit, to be one of those artists who: A) everyone assumes is writing autobiographically in every song... for some reason Liz Phair comes to mind, but this seems to be happen more often to female songwriters with strong viewpoints than anyone else (maybe because journalists like to write about sex and stuff and imagine it's all real or whatever) or B) gets forever named after one of their songs, whether or not it was written "about" (or even by) them. The Piano Man, the Material Girl, the Red-Headed Stranger, the Coal Miner's Daughter, the Space Cowboy, the Gypsy, the Acid Queen, the Excitable Boy, Miss World, the Grievous Angel, the Rhinestone Cowboy, the Slider, the Laughing Gnome... well, on second thought, that sounds like the cast of a Dylan tune, and on third thought it would suck to be a lot of those people for completely different reasons... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:07:49 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Trachtenburg Family Caught the Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players on Conan O'Brien last night - - tres fun! Anyhow, Comedy Central will be replaying it tonight at 7. - -tc, media guide ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:17:13 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: oh, that left-leaning CNN This e-mail will instantly date, but examine the lead story on http://www.bbc.co.uk/ (also the lead story on BBC World Service Radio right now.) Compare to the lack of prominence for this story on http://www.cnn.com Yup, CNN is a leftist unpatriotic anti-Bush institution, sure, sure. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:21:25 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Trachtenburg Family At 11:07 AM 4/18/2003 -0700, Tom Clark wrote: >Caught the Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players on Conan O'Brien last night >- tres fun! Anyhow, Comedy Central will be replaying it tonight at 7. > >-tc, media guide Of course, now Sumiko, Randi, Chris, Jeffrey, myself, and maybe even Eb would like to know if it involves Michelle Trachtenberg. later, Miles "would to tape the Monday afternoon CC rerun of Conan; going out to the Nashville Sounds game tonight" Goosens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:20:31 -0500 From: "Sumiko Keay" Subject: Re: Trachtenburg Family You're not kidding! Sumi >>> Miles Goosens 04/18/03 01:21PM >>> At 11:07 AM 4/18/2003 -0700, Tom Clark wrote: >Caught the Trachtenburg Family Slideshow Players on Conan O'Brien last night >- tres fun! Anyhow, Comedy Central will be replaying it tonight at 7. > >-tc, media guide Of course, now Sumiko, Randi, Chris, Jeffrey, myself, and maybe even Eb would like to know if it involves Michelle Trachtenberg. later, Miles "would to tape the Monday afternoon CC rerun of Conan; going out to the Nashville Sounds game tonight" Goosens ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:23:00 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: oh, that left-leaning CNN on 4/18/03 11:17 AM, Miles Goosens at outdoorminer@mindspring.com wrote: > This e-mail will instantly date, but examine the lead story on > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > > (also the lead story on BBC World Service Radio right now.) > > Compare to the lack of prominence for this story on > > http://www.cnn.com > > Yup, CNN is a leftist unpatriotic anti-Bush institution, sure, sure. > I presume you're referring to the anti-occupation protests in Iraq. If you read CNN's top story (about the new Saddam tape), you'll see they mention the protests about halfway down. We call that "burying the lead" in the news bidness. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:50:51 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Ermm... so now we know where one of them is... http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/prawnzilla/ As lemons chop... One could wish for a more authentic Cylon noise to accompany the sheep. (Typing that being the second thing I never expected to do but have done this morning...) - -Rex, gettin' paid to ship out tapes of Buffy episodes to be taped over (don't panic, I still have the master tapes safe and sound...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:01:57 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: actual Robyn Hitchcock question shock horror. Glen Uber wrote: > > The belief in divine beings does not automatically mean that one > has to belief in the concept of an afterlife. Indeed. The whole "no afterlife" thing is quite common amongst Quakers, especially in the UK. Stewart (posting from a slow dialup in St Louis.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:10:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: re: Mr. Xandman 'n' stuff On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Miles Goosens wrote: > I'll probably call it quits on the list itself after this message, and > continuing other parts of it would require me to rewatch some > episodes, so those parts will have to be tabled anyway. I was going to keep it brief here ... but the geek in me refused to drop the subject entirely, because I still have major disagreements with many of your points, and once I got writing I was having too much fun to stop. I entirely used up what would be my lunch hour, if I wasn't free to go eat whenever I wanted to, and then some. Note that this is because I love talking about Buffy and Angel, NOT because I'm mad at Miles or anything! Also, I have a few replies to Jeff in there too. > I think you mistake the absence of Xander actively pursuing Buffy, and > Xander sometimes reluctantly doing the right thing re: Buffy's > boyfriends, as equating to an absence of Buffy jones. And I ain't > buying. I think it works as a powerful drive with Xander, even when > it's subliminated. I thinks it an exaggeration to the point of distortion to say that Xander just "sometimes reluctantly" does the right thing re: Buffy's BFs. As time goes on he does it more and more frequently and with fewer and fewer signs of reluctance. And even as early as "Phases" (the werewolf ep), Xander comforts Buffy by saying that the now-evil Angel is "not the same guy you knew," thus admitting that he wasn't so bad before, instead of saying something like "at least you're free of that nasty Angel guy now." This despite the fact that his Buffy jones is still near its peak. In season 5 he becomes an active, enthusiastic, opposite-of-reluctant friend to the Buffy-Riley relationship -- more so than Willow was, in fact. Of course I wouldn't go so far as to say Xander lacks a "Buffy jones." There's still an element of it in him now, and probably always will be. But it's something he's learned to deal with long ago; now he even jokes about it sometimes. I really don't see any sign that it rules him, and certainly no sign of this malevolence of which ye speak. > >As for Buffy's affair > >with Spike, Xander didn't even know about it until after it was over. > > And of course he was full of rage when he found out, and has shown > even more venom towards Spike ever since. Actually, another little incident soon after also contributed to that venom. And anyway he's calmed down again re: Spike over the course of season 7, though of course they still aren't friends. When he first found out, the thing that really enraged him was that Spike had sex with *Anya* (especially painful since until then Xander was still hoping Anya might take him back). Re: Buffy, his anger was as much because she didn't trust him enough to tell him as because it was Spike she slept with -- a reaction any friend, not just a frustrated lover, could have. And BTW, did *any* of Buffy's gang think sleeping with Spike was okay? Willow? Dawn? Giles? Buffy herself? > Um, again, Xander is the one who is intent on bringing this up all the > time, and since Season 5, the one who pushes the buttons most often. > You'd be pretty antipathetic towards Xander if he kept lobbying for > you to be killed or calling you names every time you turned around. You posted this in response to my statement that the X-S antipathy was mutual. Do you really think Spike is just obnoxious because he's *responding* to Xander? Spike has been rude, sarcastic and venomous from day one. (It's a major reason why he's such a fun character!) His kindness to Buffy and Dawn was very much the exception, and didn't start until season 5 anyway. And BTW, don't forget Spike's role in helping to break Buffy and Riley up -- a major example of the kind of thing you see in *Xander*. Come to think of it, I think Spike's character *needs* Xander to work. That is, he needs at least one major character to continue disliking him. Much of Spike's charm comes from his talent for sarcastic remarks, painfully accurate insights, and hilariously cutting insults. However, none of this would be very charming if we only saw him use it on good friends or innocent victims. If that were the case, Spike wouldn't look cool anymore, he'd just look mean and hateful. > I'm dropping this whole part for now, since it requires watching > episodes I don't currently have on tape, though I can watch the early > Season 3 episodes on DVD to see how the "who knew what and said what > after it was over" part worked out. It might be objectively settled > by watching all the relevant episodes again; it might be a subjective > thing. Frankly I suspect it is a subjective thing, impossible to settle just from what we see on the screen. My argument is based on inference -- IMO it strains credulity to think that such a major point has never been discussed in almost five years. (But you should watch those eps anyway -- anything that gets you to watch Buffy is good.) Re: Xander's Big Lie: > I'll buy multiple motivations -- and encourage such interpretations -- > but I do think he took a malevolent joy in telling that particular lie > and ensuring that Angel(us) would be removed from the picture. I definitely disagree with the malevolent joy part. If you look at Xander's expression immediately after he says it, it's not like "Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!", it's more like "Oh, God, I hope I made the right decision there." But I agree about the multiple motivations part, and that one of those motivations was ignoble. For what it's worth, I've heard that Joss Whedon is on record saying that Xander's main motivation in the lie was to protect Buffy, not to get rid of Angel. (They didn't give me a citation, though.) > I'm not saying he should be condemned; I *am* saying that he hasn't > been called out for everything, and those lies, half-truths, and > subtle attempts at sabotage I wouldn't say he's *never* been called on it. For example, when the group confronted Buffy about Angel being back in season 3, Buffy responded to Xander by saying his anger is all rooted in jealousy. (Two scoops of unfair with a topping of truth, IMO.) Of course, I might just think he's been called on this stuff because I don't think he *has* done as much stuff to be called on as you think he did. > Lord help me, I'm about to resort to a transcript. Cool! You did it, so now I can without the extra geek opprobrium. ;) (By the way, for Buffy and Angel transcripts, check out . The also have what are supposedly the actual shooting scripts for most episodes.) The quotes you mention both talk about Xander's "Buffy thing," but you're missing the context, set by the first quote. > >Xander (angry): Well, what do you want me to do, > >Anya? Huh? I cant work. My back is shot. > >Anya: And whose fault is that? > >Xander: Oh, no no no. Not the Buffy thing again. > >Anya: You had no business fighting demons with > >her. > >Xander: Buffy needed me. I had to help. > >Anya (bitterly): Well, it didnt save her, did it? All it did was > ruin our lives. The point isn't that Xander is still mooning over Buffy. It's that at some point he was fighting alongside Buffy when she was killed. He's bitter because his friend is dead, and because he feels guilty that he couldn't save her. Also, probably, because being an amateur Slayer-assistant gave meaning to his life and now that's gone. All of this would hurt him *regardless* of whether Xander's feelings for Buffy were pure friendship, pure unrequited lust, or something in between. > >Anya: What did you expect me to do? You wouldnt > >come near me after Buffy > >Xander [shouts]: Dont bring her into this! Again, all this proves is that Buffy's death was traumatic for Xander in the fake vision, even years later. It doesn't prove *why* -- because he loved her as a close friend? Because he loved her as a frustrated lover? It could be either, or both. [Also, I reiterate that it wasn't the visions that made Xander decide to call off the wedding. The visions only shocked him into rethinking things, whereupon he realized that he wasn't ready, that he wasn't at all sure the marriage would work out. And IIRC, when he tells Anya, we see him looking at his parents, who have a bad marriage, but we *don't* see him look at Buffy.] > ... and I think the above provides > plenty of evidence to go with the million subtle things that Xander's > said, done, and been shown to think over the course of lo these seven > seasons (and now when I start watching reruns again, I'll start > keeping track of 'em). If you do keep track of them, I bet you'll find that they drop off sharply after season 2 and continue to steadily decline for the rest of the series. This is why I think that, although Xander may still be a little in love with Buffy, he's learned to deal with it, and it certainly doesn't control him. For all practical purposes he's just a friend. > >Now, obviously I like Xander, but I'm not saying he's perfect. He's > >impulsive, immature, overly emotional, rather snarky, sometimes > >irresponsible, often prone to fly off the handle. But I think he has a > >good heart, and he's been a very good friend to Buffy over the years. > > That's true, but what I say can also simultaneously be true. And it's > that kind of complexity that draws me into Whedon's shows. That's true, our views of Xander are not mutually exclusive. Although I sitll disagree with you, it's more because I think you over-emphasize Xander's negative characteristics than because I think you're just plain wrong. If you appreciate Whedonian complexity, you certainly shouldn't ascribe all of Xander's actions to a single root cause! > Chris, I'll conclude my end of the BtVS discussion for now by turning > over the floor to my wife, Melissa. Melissa makes a very interesting argument (not quoted for brevity's sake), but one that can be taken too far. Yes, males on Buffy are plagued by useless and frustrated protective instincts toward her, to their and her detriment. But this has to be balanced against two of the main themes of the show. One (operative mainly in seasons 1-4, fading since then) is that the Chosen One is also a young girl, with the same needs and problems as any other adolescent. She really did need guidance from adult figures, both male and female. (She didn't need as *much* guidance as Giles and Joyce thought, but she needed *more* than Buffy usually liked to admit.) And the other, constant throughout the whole series, is that Buffy needs her family and friends, even the male ones. Time and time again it's been emphasized that she is stronger with her friends, for both practical and emotional reasons, and that she jeopardizes herself when she cuts them out. If her male friends hit her with unwanted advice and criticism, that's not necessarily because they're threatened by a strong woman; sometimes it's just because that's what friends do. Also, on a more nitpicking level, I'd point out that the vamps are NOT immune to criticizing Buffy's sexual choices. Look how Angel disliked Riley in that crossover episode, and Spike has continually mocked and undercut both Angel and Riley.... Buffy has only had three serious relationships, with Angel, Riley and Spike. The first and third came in for a lot more criticism than the second. So while the criticizing males might have been threatened by Buffy's sexuality, they might also have not-unreasonable doubts about the wisdom of her loving a vampire. > >The longer both this show and "Angel" go on, > >the more clearly one can see that the acts of demons and vampires > >are only the sins of humans writ large. Now there's a great point. And I'd like to add that over seven years we've seen the soul (human conscience, mainly) that supposedly separates humans from vamps become less and less significant. Humans with souls can still go bad (not just ones who sold theirs, like the Mayor, but even genuinely good people like Willow); while at least one vamp sans soul became fairly good (although Spike had to be electroshocked into it, like a lab rat being trained to avoid the cheese on the left). Whether or not you have a soul determines if you're a human or a demon, but it doesn't determine if you're good or evil. > >Even without his soul, Spike was a > >better man than Xander, for instance, and therein may lie the rub for the > >men in Buffy's life. Here though I have to disagree. First of all, to be fair you need to note that Spike's goodness was a fairly recent development. Secondly, until he got his soul back, Spike's goodness didn't progress beyond fighting demons, loving Buffy, liking her sister and mom, and tolerating the rest of humanity. That's more non-badness than actual goodness. I certainly wouldn't call it being a better man than Xander. And while Xander has had his lapses, Spike has too. Who tried to rape Buffy, after all? Full disclosure: I have to admit that in the past I've encountered people who worship Spike to an excessive degree, so my cutting-Spike-down-to-size reflexes may be over-developed. > >And while we're on the subject of Angel women, am I the only one who > >wishes Cordelia would grow her hair out again? > > I am a big fan of the Cordy short hair. While she's made some > occasional missteps with it, in general I've thought it's sexier than > hell. On second thought, I withdraw my desire for long-haired Cordy. While I still think she looks better that way, I also think it would make her look younger, which would go against what her character has become. Cordelia has had to grow up fast on Angel, and she now acts more like Charisma Carpenter's age (about 32) than Cordelia's ostensible age (about 23). On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > While I see your point, I wouldn't call it a "real malevolence." I > think Xander's negative feelings are a part of what makes him, in many > ways, the most *human* of the _Buffy_ characters - Xander's role in BtVS has become that of being the one more or less normal guy. Sure, he now has many years of experience fighting vamps and demons. But once Cordelia left, every other major character except him had some sort of superpower (or curse in Oz's case), or a unique background. One of the purposes he serves is to tie the group to the mundane world, so the audience remembers to see them as real people with additional powers instead of as the Superfriends. > - and I think for the writers to hold him to superhuman standards, > and judge him accordingly, wouldn't sit well with me. Now, for bad > things to happen to him because of those flaws, however unfair - that > would certainly fit the Jossverse, though. To be fair, though, I don't think any of the characters have been held to superhuman standards. The ones with superpowers can do more damage when they screw up (eg, black-haired Willow), but everyone has the same old human opportunities to screw up. > I really like the way _Angel_'s plot is developing - at first, I was > dubious, thinking, "okay, how long can everyone stumble around like > sheep anyway? Gotcher point, Joss: excessive religious conformity is > creepy, check." But, the magnitude of the threat is pretty cool, and > the sheer creepiness is, well, creepy (in a creepy way). I agree about the scale and creepiness. The promo for the next ep looked great! Also, I liked the way Angel kept his broody personality even while under Jasmine's thrall -- nice touch. > Speaking of creepy, how about that Preacher guy on _Buffy_ (Nathan > Fillion - captain on _Firefly_)? I like it! A serial killer with a calm little smirk is creepier than any number of screaming demons. I know I am very, very alone when I say this, but I liked "Doublemeat Palace." I mean, it was far from the best episode of the season, but I enjoyed it. The scenes inside the kitchen and offices of the DMP were creepy and hilarious, and I enjoyed the twist about what exactly is in Double-Meat Medleys. The demon was a little too heavy on the symbolism, though. Okay, I'll shut up now. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #147 ********************************