From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #4 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, January 7 2000 Volume 02 : Number 004 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: welcome [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/hushdream2 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/hushdream2 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: m/new CDs [meredith ] Re: b/hushdream2 [meredith ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 10:45:49 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: welcome In a message dated 1/5/00 7:46:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, susank@fiber.net writes: << Now for a stupid question: what's digest form? >> If you are subscribed to digest form of a list, then you receive the messages in bunches as one big email, rather than each message as an individual email. Advantage is that it helps to keep your mailbox from being overwhelmed by too many emails (and digests help you manage if you subscribe to lots of lists); disadvantage is the delay, which makes it harder to participate actively in a discussion. But digest is good for lurkers. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:11:29 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/hushdream2 Gayle accidentally sent a comment just to me, to which I replied just to her; she's now asked me to forward both posts to the list. Here's hers - -- DB - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:40:21 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com To: dbratman@genie.idt.net Subject: Re: b/hushdream2 In a message dated 1/4/00 9:55:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << Willow's comment about "everything we need for the final" was (clearly, I think) intended by her as a joke to needle Buffy for falling asleep. But this being "Buffy", it surely has more relevance than that, and probably it's a key to alert us to the significance of what Walsh had said, >> Willow doesn't say anything about what Walsh had said. I think that "everything we need for the final" meant the info in the dream, which gave Buffy the key to defeating the Gentlemen. But (this being BUFFY) it also may have meant something about Riley. A thought I had when watching the rerun of "Living Conditions." What if the roommate (forget her name) HAD absorbed Buffy's soul? What would be the consequences of that? How much Buffy would she be? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 12:12:11 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/hushdream2 And here's mine -- DB - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:07:32 -0500 (EST) From: David S. Bratman To: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/hushdream2 Gayle - I think your message went just to me, so I'm replying likewise. I have to assume that Willow wasn't privy to the contents of Buffy's dream, so that when Buffy asks her what she missed, Willow's reply refers, however jocularly, to whatever Walsh had been saying. Therefore _if_ there is significance to her "everything we need for the final" remark, it privileges Walsh's comments in the dream (if they were indeed in the dream). The dream as a whole hardly needs Willow's imprimatur to be important, considering the general importance of teaser dreams in this show. David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:12:50 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: m/new CDs Hi! David noted: >Not long ago I listened to the Quartet Romantic, as it happens -- this is >a work in which the lines are in such total rhythmic independence that it >can only be performed by players wearing headphones and listening to a >click track instead of each other I saw a piece performed like this over a year ago, at an evening of new music works (produced by Philip Glass) in New York City. I don't think it was the Quartet Romantic, but it was based on the same rhythmic principle (or lack thereof), and all the players were wearing headphones. It wasn't all that hopelessly dissonant, though - as I recall, it was rather cool. >Schoenberg, not of the really outstanding quality the position demands, >but massively influential, even if his role in modern music was similar >to that of Marx in modern politics: i.e. diagnosed a problem accurately, >but the cure was worse than the disease. > >Stravinsky, whose influence was probably even greater than Schoenberg's, >and who was certainly a greater composer, though not consistently so. > >And my choice, Shostakovich, who was not quite so influential (though his >influence remains very broad, particularly on just about every composer >to have emerged from the Soviet empire and its successors), but who kept >up a remarkably consistent string of great works for fifty years covering >the entire middle half of the century. (Yes, he wrote a lot of trash, >but he had no weak _periods_.) > >Bartok? An honourable runner-up. I just have to say that this whole discussion brought to mind an amusing conversation I had this past weekend. I was watching the Flyers/Islanders game with a friend who has a master's in opera, and she commented that all the hockey players sounded like Eastern European composers. Then, since it was an extremely silly weekend to begin with, we started the play-by-play: "Shostakovich wins the faceoff. Stravinsky passes to Schoenberg. He flips to Mahler on the point. Mahler shoots. Bartok -- SAAAAVE!!!" Maybe it was one of those location things, but we thought it was worth a laugh. :) +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:39:54 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/hushdream2 Hi! Jumping into this thread: >1. In contrast to the Buffy & Faith dream, which I knew immediately >was a dream, I did =not= realize the opening of "Hush" was a dream until >Buffy wakes up in class. Deirdre (my daughter) in contrast knew it was a >dream upon Riley's statement "When I kiss you, it'll make the sun go >down." That's where I clued in, too. The whole situation was getting pretty absurdist until that point, but when Riley delivered that line it all became clear what was going on. >3. But here's a wrinkle. Did Prof. Walsh even deliver that lecture? One of >the necessary decipherments in this scene is: when did Buffy fall asleep? >Was she asleep when the episode opened? That seems the most likely >interpretation; there's no obvious seam, no point before which she's >surely awake and after which she's asleep. But =if= she's asleep...is the >opening paragraph of lecture something Buffy's own mind came up with (as >an explanation for its own functioning)? Or can we postulate that Buffy >has nodded off but is still awake enough to hear that paragraph? I would be willing to believe that. When you're half-asleep anyway, what you're hearing can totally drive your subconscious. I could go on and on about the dreams I've had early in the morning, before I've been able to drag myself out of bed but after my clock radio has turned Morning Edition on. (This morning, for instance, I dreamed I was teaching myself how to play the violin in the back seat of a Cadillac, and when I came to the story on the radio was about Arthur Rubenstein (piano, violin, same diff ;).) >5. Riley's statement--"When I kiss you, it'll make the sun go down"--sent >the hair prickling up the back of my neck; it's deeply resonant, though >what it means, and why and how it forms the linking motif between the >classroom and the prophecy, I have no clue. (Is this the incomprehensible >knot from the Freud quote I mentioned last discussion? The equivalent of >"Little Miss Muffet counting down from 730"?). I think it's some sort of sub-subconscious link in Buffy's mind between Riley and Angel. It's almost like he's saying "it's okay, I'm like him, you don't have to be afraid to go there with me." When Riley first uttered the line, I said to myself, "Angel." +==========================================================================+ | Meredith Tarr meth@smoe.org | | New Haven, CT USA http://www.smoe.org/~meth | +==========================================================================+ | "things are more beautiful when they're obscure" -- veda hille | | *** TRAJECTORY, the Veda Hille mailing list: *** | | *** http://www.smoe.org/meth/trajectory.html *** | +==========================================================================+ ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #4 ***************************