From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #23 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, January 31 2000 Volume 02 : Number 023 Today's Subjects: ----------------- b/joss spoilers on buffy posting board [Micole Sudberg ] b/jung1 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/jung2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) [GHighPine@aol.] Re: b/jung2 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/jung1 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) [allenw (by way of Micole Sudberg ) Subject: b/joss spoilers on buffy posting board A friend sent me the following joss quotes from the buffy posting board. if you like doing your own interpretation of, er, subtext, and not knowing who or what is coming up, skip the rest of this post. >joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:11:57 2000 205.188.192.163) > Hello. Stopping by to lie a lot about what's coming up.Anyone >else excited about the Buffy-adopts-a-walrus story arc? I know I am! > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:20:00 2000 205.188.192.163) > Well, you guys probably have all sorts of questions. As is my >tradition, I like answer a few right away to save time. So: > 1. With riley, but not til season five. > 2. Long passages from "Hedda Gabler", translated into Urdu. > 3. Tony, by far. > 4. Because the WB just wouldn't let us show something like > that even if it is a valid alternative lifestyle choice. > 5. Yes, i made up the whole walrus thing by myself. (I've still > GOT IT!) > 6. I honestly don't know. > 7. All out war. And it's gonna be fun. > >Okay. That should clear a lot of things up. Meanwhile, i'm frittering >away my day off by staring at the wall and going "I can't belive I have >a day off". Also by doing this. How's everybody else? > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:27:28 2000 205.188.192.163) > Okay. The lawsuit. I agree that Xander has been slightly less in >the foreground this season. He's also been funnier than ever, great >work nick, and look for his situation to change (slowly). I personally >dig him and Anya -- we're working on an ep that features them. Neither >Sarah nor Sophia has had a major head injury that I know of, though >Sophia gets banged up pretty impressively. I work on all the stories for >Angel, but don't plan to write one by myself for now. No time. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:37:03 2000 205.188.192.163) > Well, we meant it to be SUBTEXT, but you guys have obviously >worked it out. Yes, Willow is becoming a Monkey-owner. I just hope we >don't get a lot of protest from Christian Right Groups over this. > >Marginally more seriously, Willow and Tara's relationship is definitely >romantic. Thorny subject; the writers and I have had long topics about >how to deal with the subject responibly, without writing a story that >sounds like people spent a long time discussing how to deal with it >responsibly. To me it feels just right. ALL the relationships on the >show are sort of >romantic (Hence the B Y O Subtext principle) and this feels like the >natural next step for her. I can only promise you two things for sure: >We're not going to do an ALLY or PARTY OF5 in which we promote the hell >out of a same sex relationship for exploitation value that we take back >by the end of the ep, and we will never have a very special Buffy where >someone gets on a soapbox and... oh, I nodded off for a moment there. I >just know there's a sweet story there, that would become very >complicated if Oz were to show up again. Which he will. > > > > >joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:43:16 2000 205.188.192.163) >I tell the actors I'm gonna kill their characters all the time, and >they NEVER LAUGH. I just don't get it. And yes, Tracey says "aboot." > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:49:59 2000 205.188.192.163) >Lilly/Chantarelle -- I am hoping to bring her to Angel in a story soon. >Julia's a very cool actress. Alien 4 -- afraid I don't share your good >opinion of it. I'll not write another movie I don't direct (and I don't >think I'd do Alien because I'd like to work on a franchise that nine >guys didn't have a piece of). > > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 16:54:26 2000 205.188.192.163) > See, this is why I love coming here. You guys actually make me >think about what I'm doing, about how I'm working this whole Buffy >concepts. It's an honor to be challenged by these incisive questions. I >feel compelled to answer more honestly than I normally would. Yes, I >like chicken a whole damn lot. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:01:06 2000 205.188.192.163) > Sazzie -- you live in town? Or a Wykemist? I have been back but >once, on my honeymoon. Would have gone sooner but had no money. > >The stuff in the dream in graduation day does have meaning. All will be >revealed. > >HUSH was much the labor of love. The whole crew worked their asses off >and did wonderful jobs. i was really proud of the whole effort. No, i >didn't read G I Joe. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:06:26 2000 205.188.192.163) > Cheese and ice capades -- that was our Mr Petrie. Credit due. > >joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:11:10 2000 205.188.192.163) > I seldom drink, but the answer would be Jack Daniels. > >Slave, bingo. But there is also another reason, which will be explained. >(This was in response to this statement from someone named Slave2Faity " >I have to say that Willow's lying about Tara is classic behavior. I'm >not answering for you, Joss, just presenting my own viewpoint :) The >thing is, perhaps Willow already has a twinge of feeling for Tara, >and it scares her. Why, then, would she tell Buffy about Tara? Buffy >might get suspicious, start asking questions...and perhaps it's not >something Willow feels comfortable sharing. I certainly never felt >right telling people about my girlfriend... it's not easily brought up >in a conversation,,," > > >Yes we will learn more about Angel's family. We've got some juicy >flashbacks coming up -- which can only mean one thing. DARLA. I've >missed her so. > >As will Faith. I'm shooting an ep with the irrepressable Eliza now and >it's great fun. She's gonna shake things up. > >joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:18:17 2000 205.188.192.163) > Spike fighting his way out of the initiative? Funny you should >ask. This was one of the great foul ups in Buffy history. When I saw the >show cut together I went ballistic. Spike was hitting everybody -- in >the initiative, in the dorm hall, it was insane. Now I surround myself >with smart people (and then take credit for their efforts, a plan >brilliant in its simplicity) but the ball got dropped there. We couldn't >reshoot most of it so we edited it so that all he did was throw people, >not punch them, and when he did punch someone he went "Arrgh my head" >and whatnot. Mostly, we got away with it. It's like every time I see >Angel walking in what looks like sunlight, i just cry and realize I >can't possibly run two shows. But I press on after someone drags me >drooling and muttering from the men's room and try to do my best. So for >the love of god, DON'T MENTION THE SPIKE >THING!!! Fa la la. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:22:14 2000 205.188.192.163) > By the by, destroying the citroen was a personal favor to Tony. He >hated driving that thing. > > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:25:52 2000 205.188.192.163) > Okay, i'm winding down... But the answer is, barring unforseen >developments, yes. Buffy and Angel will crossover again this year. And >it will be quite different from the last time. And yes, Angel will meet >Riley. I bet they'll be BEST FRIENDS.. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:32:04 2000 205.188.192.163) > Matrix, best movie, best screenplay. Period. Haven't got the >storyboards, still not ready to look behind the magic. Tony had to loop >one scene in 11, and for some reason the loops did sound awkward. Our >sound guys are usually awesome, i guess that was a tough one. > > > joss says: > (Sat Jan 29 17:37:42 2000 205.188.192.163) > And now I go. So very tired. Sorry for all unanswered questions. >Have good saturdays. > > And off he rode on his majestic horse, a horse made of metal that >had wheels and that he actually got INTO instead of riding on its back, >a horse that was powered by gasoline and emmited a smoky plume of >carbon monoxide as away he rode, shouting "giddyup!', and honking his >horses horn. - -- "Language rustles around her with many voices, none of them hers, all of them hers."--A. S. Byatt, _Babel Tower_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 10:58:43 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) I saw those Joss quotes quoted on USENET (in a response to a quote from a WB spokeswoman that Willow and Tara were not romantically linked) and was struck by how much more informative they were than his usual on-line statements, and not just on the Willow/Tara thing. Of course, that very fact has some folks claiming that he must be lying. Lots of room for speculation. The most intriguing "speculation seed", IMHO: What's Willow's "other reason" for not telling Buffy about Tara, if the first reason is embarassment/denial? My first thought, of course, is a spell; but whose, and why? - Could be a spell of Tara's, but if Tara is messing with Willow's mind magically then Tara's hardly "the natural next step" for Willow, is she? Barring a magical accident, of course. - Could be Willow's magic subconsciously making her forget about Tara when she's with her friends (sort of a concretized manifestation of denial). Or Tara's magic subconsciously doing the same thing. - Could have to do with Tara's mysterious, powerfull witch-mother. Perhaps Tara is under a curse of being ignored, somewhat like the Invisible Girl from Season 1? - Or (wild swing here) maybe Tara isn't actually another person, but is rather a magical creation of Willow's own subconscious? That might explain her shyness (like that of early Willow), and how she and Willow semm to multiply their powers together, and how Tara's mom was a powerful witch "like you" (Willow). Any thoughts? -Allen W. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:59:25 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) (Gayle: I'm assuming/hoping you meant your original reply to go to the list) On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 1/30/00 9:01:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com > writes: > > << > - Or (wild swing here) maybe Tara isn't actually another person, but is > rather a magical creation of Willow's own subconscious? That might > explain her shyness (like that of early Willow), and how she and Willow > semm to multiply their powers together, and how Tara's mom was a powerful > witch "like you" (Willow). >> > > That's a cool idea, though I doubt it would happen. > > It's not fun only to predict, but also to offer speculations and > alternatives that probably won't happen. > > Gayle > Gayle, Actually, I hope my idea above *isn't* the case, since it would seem to me like a cop-out on Joss' part. However, the more I think about it, the more possible it seems. Here's a transcript of Willow and Tara's first conversation ("Hush", from the useful transcript site http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de/buffy.html: === Interior, Willow and Tara are sitting down in a public area. Willow: "You were there looking for me?" Tara: "I thought maybe we could do a spell - make people talk again. I'I'd seen you in the group, the wicca group you were... you were different than them. I mean they didn't seem to know..." Willow: "What they were talking about." Tara: "I think if they saw a witch they would run the other way." She smiles and laughs. Willow: "How long have you been practicing?" Tara: "Always, I mean, since I um, was little... my, my mom used to, She um, she had a lot of power, like you." Willow: "Oh I'm not {{li}}.. I don't have much in the way of power." She smiles. Willow: "Really, I mean most of my potions come out soup Besides... spells going awry, friends in danger... I'm definitely nothing special." Tara: "No, you are." Willow smiles at the compliment. Tara smiles hesitantly, then smiles. === It occurs to me that Tara's "Always, I mean..." line could literally be true: Tara has always been a witch, ever since she was created. And the extra hesitations in that line could be due to the awkwardness of her never really having been little, and of Willow being her "Mom". I note also that, while we have seen Tara outside of Willow's company once, even then she was looking for Willow. We have no information on anything Tara has done that hasn't revolved around Willow (which is one reason why she so far seems like a weak character). -Allen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:34:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/freud My researches touched off by =Buffy= have led me far afield: the history of the Gothic, feminist film-criticism, studies of Joan of Arc, structural anthropology; but possibly the wildest thickets are those of Freudian psychology. I've never really believed in Freud; reading him has tended to make me go "Huh? No way!" (blinding oneself, e.g. Oedipus, is symbolically equivalent to castration??). It's hard, however, to ignore him, one way or another; and so I've glanced through =The Interpretation of Dreams= (especially lately) and similar stuff. But I've also read Frederick Crews' two books on Freud, =Unauthorized Freud= and =The Memory Wars= (the latter more specifically on the recovered-memory movement, but clear on its debt to Freudian ideas), which give Freud a very thorough debunking; Crews states his position quite trenchantly that Freudian psychology is a pseudoscience (no better than astrology)--even its most basic ideas have never been clinically demonstrated or empirically proven, and there is no evidence that it's ever cured anybody. Crews argues so convincingly that it has not only confirmed my doubts about Freud, but cast doubts on Jung as well. It's important to understand, incidentally, that Jung was never Freud's pupil, and only briefly could have been described as his "follower"; he was a younger colleague working in the same field, and arguably was ahead of Freud in clinically demonstrating his psychological theories. But Jung was excited by Freud's ideas, was a colleague and collaborator of his for a number of years, and broke with him only with great reluctance and mental anguish. It was in this state of mind regarding these two seminal figures that I began reading a fascinating book by John Kerr, =A Most Dangerous Method=, subtitled "The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein." Spielrein was first a patient of Jung's, later his pupil and confidante, then became a colleague of Freud's and a psychoanalyst in her own right. The story Kerr tells is very dispiriting, full of bad faith, political infighting, lack of professional ethics, and post-Victorian sexism. From the evidence Kerr cites, it seems that Spielrein was quite an original thinker in the same area as Freud and Jung were working, but never got as much credit, and has been lost to history for about fifty years (and her work is still not available in English); with the Kerr book and one earlier one maybe she'll get a better deal in future. Anyway, this is all preamble to the following striking passage in Kerr's text, from a document of Spielrein's referred to as the =Transformation Journal=: "...sexuality...is ultimately antagonistic to the differentiated individual. For this reason it is felt to be something 'demonic' and 'destructive.' Accordingly, sexuality is typically accompanied by its own resistances as the individual seeks to preserve what he has achieved by way of differentiation....one can distinguish this sense of the demonic or destructive from the wish to make a great 'sacrifice' for the sake of a cause so often seen in young people...for the latter entails the instinct for transformation as well. Even in the act of copulation, moreover, part of the sexual instinct is still necessarily repressed ...otherwise...the sexual act would degenerate into murder and martyrdom." I have to point out that this text has suffered multiple betrayals: it was originally written in German, published only in French, and here synopsized in English (not to mention excerpted by me). And it's hard to figure out what, precisely, Spielrein is driving at. But pardon me for possibly fuguing off into my own obsessions, but this seems to me to apply quite aptly to the Buffy/Angel romance. Sex as demonic (how did Cordelia put it in the last =Angel= episode, "Sex bad"?), turning into murder? The sacrifice of young people, as in Slayers being the Chosen Ones? It pretty clearly explains Buffy's dilemma with Angel, it seems to me. As specifically seen in the following piece of script: [End of teaser to "Something Blue." All rights, etc., Fair Use only.] [SCENE: A graveyard. BUFFY is explaining to WILLOW that she's happy so far with her relationship with RILEY.] BUFFY: ...but--I just feel like something's missing. WILLOW: He's not making you miserable? BUFFY: Exactly. Riley seems so solid--like he wouldn't cause me heartache. WILLOW: [sardonically] Get out--get out while there's still time! BUFFY: I know--I have to get away from that bad-boy thing. There's no good there. Seeing Angel in L.A.--even for five minutes--hello to the pain! WILLOW: The pain is not a friend. BUFFY: But I can't help thinking--isn't that where the fire comes from? Can a nice, safe relationship be that intense? I know it's nuts, but part of me believes that real love and passion have to go hand in hand with pain and fighting. [offhandedly kills vampire] I wonder where I get that from? [BLACKOUT] In the end, I'm not sure what my point is here, except that as usual everything I read seems to resonate with =Buffy= somehow. And I also want to point out here that even if I'm not sure I believe Freudian psychology has anything to do with "reality," that's beside the point in re =Buffy=; first of all, I don't believe in vampires, or magic, or other arcane disciplines either, and Freudianism is just as "useful" a "magical system" for a fantasy such as this; and second, it's becoming clearer (especially the way Professor Walsh's lectures are obviously intended as commentary on the action) that Joss Whedon has deliberately based his fiction, in part, on Freudian ideas. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:36:32 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/jung1 My doubts about Jung didn't last long, however, once I went further dipping into his work and reading other stuff about him. I've always felt about Jung's ideas (as opposed to Freud's) that they make immediate sense to me; to quote Robert Christgau, they are so much to my taste that it makes me doubt my taste a little. One has to be the most suspicious of one's strongest enthusiasms; but still the collective unconscious, and archetypes, etc. have a strong appeal for me. I've also discovered that Jung and I have certain points of similarity; I had to laugh in recognition at the following passage from Joseph Campbell's introduction to =The Portable Jung= concerning the writing of Jung's first work of esoterica =Symbols of Transformation= (the book that led to his break with Freud): "[Jung] had just begun his study of mythology and in the course of the readings came across [a 19th-century mythological text], which, as he declares, 'fired' him. He worked like mad through a mountain of mythological material, continued through the Gnostic writers, and ended in total confusion; then he chanced on a series of fantasies of a certain Miss Miller.... He was immediately struck by the mythological character of the fantasies and found that they operated as a catalyst on the stored-up ideas within him." Sounds like =my= life the last couple years, with Dumezil and =Buffy= substituted in the appropriate places. Anthony Storr's little book on Jung, first published in Frank Kermode's "Modern Masters" series and now in a more expensive paperback (I got it from the library) is a very good introduction to its subject; Storr gives Jung a lot of credit where due, assesses each point very carefully, and isn't afraid to criticize quite sharply when he feels it appropriate. (And is equally evenhanded about Freud, about whom he's also written a short study I haven't read yet). Here's Storr's brief pronouncement on the difference between Freud and Jung: "...Freud tended to interpret all numinous and emotionally significant experience as derived from, or a substitute for, sex; whereas Jung tended to interpret even sexuality itself as symbolic, possessing "numinous" significance in that it represented an irrational union of opposites and was thus a symbol of wholeness." (Those of you who were following the argument about mythology I had with Greg Feeley in the last days of GEnie might notice that his position was broadly Freudian, and mine specifically Jungian.) The image that occurs to me is that when you open the door to the Freudian unconscious, you find a nasty little closet crammed full of junk you've tried to forget about; and that's it. When you open the door to the Jungian unconscious, you may find the closet there, but it opens into a vast underground realm, as big as the "outer" world, where you can lose yourself forever. Quite a difference in vista. Jung himself wrote a remarkable 10-page piece called "In Memoriam Sigmund Freud" right after Freud died; it's no eulogy. It does acknowledge Freud's importance, and gives him credit, essentially, for looking in the right direction; but it's a remarkably sharp point-by-point criticism of many of Freud's positions. It's from his collection =The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature=, and I recommend it. (There is also "Freud and Jung--Contrasts," an earlier essay in Jung's =Modern Man in Search of a Soul= which makes some of the same points more succinctly.) Jung has had a strong influence on literary criticism; here's another thought-provoking statement from John Vickery's =Myths and Texts= (Vickery also has written a book on the literary influence of Frazer's =The Golden Bough=): "Briefly put, [Jung's] view holds that in the process of ego development a part of the personality, called the shadow, is repressed for the sake of the ego ideal. The shadow is the negative part of the psyche, consisting of all those qualities, values, and attitudes which the persona finds most despicable, unbearable, and hateful. These elements generate a powerful, though largely unconscious, guilt feeling in the individual.... Freedom from the distress of this feeling, from ths unconscious conflict, is achieved by the activity known as projection, whereby the negative qualities resident in the psyche are projected or transferred to the external world and experienced not as something within but as something outside and alien to one. So seen, this entity, individual, type, or group is blamed, attacked, punished, and otherwise eliminated, for it is literally the stranger, the enemy, the personification of evil. By instituting such a scapegoat and performing the ritual expulsion, the individual and the group discharge their own repressed negative drives and behavior impulses. in this way, the mind eliminates, at least for a time, those feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and insecurity that inevitably haunt the psyche which refuses to face its shadow. Such a psychological interpretation ...explains the perdurability of the scapegoat...." Which sounds to me like the process that Joss Whedon used to write =Buffy=: all of her negative qualities were embodied in external characters (Cordelia, Faith, Angel...) and one by one they've been put behind her and she's moved on. (And the really evil characters-- vampires, etc.--are the group/community scapegoats.) I'm not quite done with Jung yet. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:41:43 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/jung2 This is how my mind works. I'm just starting to get acquainted with the most forbidding of Jung's works, his group of roughly 500-page tomes (=Symbols of Transformation=, =Alchemical Studies=, =Psychology and Alchemy=, and =Mysterium Coniunctionis=)--and parts of his other books, a total of more than 2,000 pages--on the subject of the correspondance between the symbols of contemporary people's dreams and those of Renaissance alchemy. (Already beginning to sound a bit esoteric, no?) And on this early acquaintance, I'm finding this stuff to be almost alarmingly fecund; it gets my synapses overfiring and I find I can only read a few pages at a time before overloading on the patterning of symbols and tropes--very much the same experience I have reading Dumezil, or Greer Gilman's novel =Moonwise=. Here's the first sentence of =Mysterium Coniunctionis=: "The factors which come together in the coniunctio are conceived as opposites, either confronting one another in enmity or attracting one another in love." Now, again, maybe it's just me fuguing, but my reaction to this sentence was to =instantly= foresee a future essay entitled "The =Coniunctio= of Buffy and Angel" which would discuss these alchemical ideas (details filled in as I further familiarize myself with the material) as it applies to their relationship: for example the way that Buffy and Angel's "sacred marriage" (don't kid yourself: symbolically that's exactly what it was) in "Surprise" actually =causes= the characters to be polarized into deadly enemies; and how this drawing-together & pulling-apart action was re-enacted at the end of "Becoming"; and how it was further replayed, repeatedly, like a series of dying echoes, throughout the third season, until it was cranked up full-force again in "Graduation Day." (And even =that= wasn't the last time, because the whole situation was rerun in the =Angel= crossover episode "I Will Remember You.") How to justify this more "esoteric" reading over the "normal" dramatic pattern of attraction/repulsion can't-live-with-'em-can't-live-without-'em of standard contemporary romance? First of all, the alchemical patterns, if Jung is right, are what John Clute in the =Encyclopedia of Fantasy= calls "underliers," old patterns prefiguring new ones; secondly, there is an excess of resonance, or numinousness (call it mythic, call it Gothic) in the story not present in the ordinary romance; thirdly, notice that the supernatural apparatus that governs the drawing together/pulling apart is different in each case. Does this make sense, so far? I've even got some more details already. One of the main oppositions that form the coniunctio is the sun (male) and moon (female). One can see this preserved in George Macdonald's 19th-century novella "The Romance of Photogen and Nycteris," the alternate title of which is "The Day-Boy and the Night-Girl." Characteristically, =Buffy= has no compunction about gender-swapping, so here we have Buffy (the day-girl with her so-called "normal" life) and Angel (the night-boy, vampire). Also, the actual coupling of the coniunctio takes place in water, in the sea in fact; note that not only do Buffy and Angel, after he gives her the claddagh ring in "Surprise," take a dip in the harbor, but just before they actually make love they are drenched in a rain shower. (Also, Buffy's first dream about Angel in "Anne" in the third season takes place on the beach, as does the scene where Angel tracks her down in "I Will Remember You.") Furthermore, there's an image-cluster about the woman coupling with a dragon in the grave (monster + grave = vampire in this case). Maybe this is all far-fetched; but I'm not making this up. I may also be talking through my hat here, but my intuition tells me that I'm on to something again here, that the more I read of this stuff the more connections I'm going to make. And by the way, I'm quite aware that there is a thoroughly persuasive and consistent Freudian reading to be made on the whole narrative, on the theme of penetration, i.e. Buffy/Angel/Faith serially puncturing one another like some kind of horrorfest round robin. Consider: in the 2nd season Buffy and Angel have sex, which turns him evil; Buffy fails to stake him when she has the chance, due to which people die (Jenny Calendar, Kendra, Theresa; and by the way these three fall neatly into Dumezil's three-functions pattern); then Buffy stabs him and sends him to Hell. Which can be diagrammed: Angel --> Buffy Buffy -/-> Angel [three deaths] Buffy --> Angel In the 3rd season, Faith tries to stake Angel (but is prevented by Buffy); tries to seduce Angel (but gets turned down); eventually she shoots Angel with a poisoned arrow, which leads to Buffy stabbing Faith with her own knife, and Buffy forcing Angel to bite her. Roll the diagrams, please: Faith -/-> Angel Angel -/-> Faith Faith --> Angel Buffy --> Faith Angel --> Buffy The vexed qustion, of course, is: does this very evident patterning =mean= anything, or have I descended into silliness? Freud and Levi-Strauss would have loved it in any case. Might work in the overall essay as a joke/alternative. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:43:49 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) Yeah, you're right, Allen, I did mean to post to the list. Darn, I keep doing that. If anybody gets a private post to me that looks like it was supposed to be a list post, be assured that it =was= intended as a list post. Blanket statement. Anyway, didn't the other girls acknowledge Tara in some way? I personally like stories that make you question what's real, what's a creation of your mind, is the latter necessarily =un=real, stuff like that. Personal taste. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:16:54 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/jung2 When you compare BUFFY with Hindu mythology, it is lots of fun to read, but I doubt it really has a direct connection with BUFFY. With the Jungian stuff, though, I think that some of the similarities =are= deliberate, and hidden in the Jungian analyses may be paths into Joss's brain. Hee hee. Oh -- I didn't understand the diagrams. Explain? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:16:52 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/jung1 Loved this post! It expressed my view on lots of things -- agree thoroughly with all the key points. << The image that occurs to me is that when you open the door to the Freudian unconscious, you find a nasty little closet crammed full of junk you've tried to forget about; and that's it. When you open the door to the Jungian unconscious, you may find the closet there, but it opens into a vast underground realm, as big as the "outer" world, where you can lose yourself forever. Quite a difference in vista. >> The latter is very close to the views of my own culture. It is the basis of what is sometimes called "shamanism." Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:28:38 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: Willow's "other reason" (Mild W/T spoilers possible) Gayle, Yup, the other Wiccans did interact with Tara (in a very minor way), as did the Gentlemen (in a more significant way). I'm not arguing that Tara might not actually physically exist, just that her existence may be dependent on Willow (though I hope not). I'm usually fond of reality-bending or -questioning stories myself, from BRAZIL to THE MATRIX to BEING JOHN MALKOVITCH. But they have to be done well, and carefully, or they end up being reset-button Voyager episodes. -Allen ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #23 ****************************