From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #29 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, February 6 2000 Volume 02 : Number 029 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: stillpt-digest V2 #28 ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] b/buffypress2 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/jung3 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/riley ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: os/list administration [meredith ] Re: b/riley ["David S. Bratman" ] [none] ["Vicki Varvello" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 09:15:12 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #28 So am I one of these, David? Name names! And repeat please the correct reply procedure! I'm never clear if I'm doing it the right way! While I'm on the subject, I have a rabid Buffy fan here in Chicago who is interested in subscribing. His e-mail is LINO5025@aol.com. The usual subscription rule is, Send an e-mail to subscribe.stillpt@smoe.org?? (the part I forget) with NOTHING in the subject line, and only the words subscribe stillpt@smoe.org (or ???) in the message. But what are the two addresses? Also of course he would need permission of this list to enter. Donald, a propos of nothing, my paint apprentice offered me some weird Tori Amos cuts--covers of Police tunes, Tori singing at a church wedding in high school, etc. Want a copy? - -Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 22:46:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/buffypress2 It really does seem like publications will take any excuse to use SMG's photograph in print. A few weeks ago the =NY Post= had an article on their TV page about James Cameron's new series =Dark Angel= (headline: "Titanic Watch on 'Angel'"), about an 18-year-old genetically-enhanced supersoldier (played by Jessica Alba, whose name is vaguely familiar to me from some teen movies); and they printed her picture and SMG's with a "Girl Power Face Off" box comparing Max (the new character) to Buffy. And it seems like hardly a week goes by without =Entertainment Weekly= doing something similar. In the "Our Guide to 2000" issue is an article on 20th Century Fox's crackdown on unauthorized =Buffy= websites (with SMG photo); their coverage of the upcoming =Scream 3= featured a =Scream 2= photo of SMG and two other small-role actresses; and this current issue (2/11/00) has an "On the Air" TV news short piece on the Willow/Tara relationship. Does it have a picture of the two? Nope. Willow and Buffy. ?? Here's the end of the article: "Whedon won't say how long the story line lasts, but does promise that Willow's ex-boyfriend Oz (Seth Green) will soon reappear. 'My hope is that people won't be so anxious to put a label on it, like she's become a lesbian or it's just a phase or she's bisexual,' says Whedon. 'I didn't want to make it a big issue.' Yeah, like that was a possibility." Well, they're right; whatever Whedon's intention, the =Xena= experience suggests that it =is= going to be a big issue. Will definitely be interesting to see how it works itself out... A few random notes that occured to me while working my way through rewatching the new boxed set. In the second half of the season finale, several characters visit the hospital where one character--who suffered a severe head injury in the first half--lies in a coma. Am I talking about the 3rd season (Faith)? Or the 2nd season (Willow)? The "script" that the ghosts are following in "I Only Have Eyes for You" has several moments that prefigure the Buffy/Angel breakup scene in "The Prom" (both episodes written by Marti Noxon). The two conversations between Buffy and Angel about his leaving town with the piece of the Judge in "Surprise" (especially the plaintive question "When?") prefigure their conversation at the end of "I Will Remember You" on =Angel=. And lastly for this motley post, an amplification on my speculations about the broadcast schedule for the rest of the season. At the 2nd season first-Feb-Tues break, they had broadcast 15 new episodes (through "Phases"); thus the crisis-point of "Surprise"/"Innocence" (#13-14) was already past. After 3 new episodes spread over the ensuing weeks ending 3/3, there were =7= dark Tuesdays before they ended the season with 4 straight new episodes, with the finale on 5/19. At the 3rd season first-Feb-Tues break, they had broadcast only 13 new episodes (through "The Zeppo"); the crisis-point was less clearly reached, though "Helpless" (the firing of Giles) did prefigure it. 3 new episodes in a row ("Bad Girls," "Consequences," "Doppelgangland") followed ending 2/23; and over the space of the next =8= Tuesdays only one new episode, "Enemies," appeared. New episodes were scheduled to resume 4/28 for five straight ending the season on 5/25 (of course, the first and last were delayed). At the 4th season first-Feb-Tues break, they have broadcast only 12 new episodes; and it seems like the crisis-point is imminent, but not yet here. We know that we have two more new episodes in a row (2/8 and 2/15), but as I write this no new information. I'm going to make an educated guess that the season will probably end on 5/23, and that that will cap, say, five final new episodes, beginning about 4/25. Which means that over the course of =10= Tuesdays (2/22-4-18), we can probably expect no more than three new episodes (which should include the Return of Faith about #15, per rumor). In the last two seasons, only one episode during each was broadcast in March, and only one during April. So in about a month we're going to have a lot of stewing to do. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 22:58:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/jung3 Jennifer: Thanks for the quick precis of the =scientia= (useful word: doesn't mean "science," but at the same time doesn't =not= mean science); some if it I knew, but you've given me an idea of the ambit of the various disciplines. (Basically seems like the same sort of guys doing slightly different things at different times, but overlapping.) I was trying to get an idea of whether I really need to hare off in those several directions. If I decide to dip my toe in, your hint about that other Yates book will be helpful. The problem I've been finding is that along the way I've come across at least a half-dozen areas where I could stop and devote the rest of my life to the study. I could of course remain a critic of the fantasy field, or devote more time to music criticism; I could learn Sanskrit and become a Vedic scholar; I could pursue mythography (i.e. the general study of mythology); I could look into the various Renaissance pre-scientific disciplines; I could make myself a pop- culture reviewer (the number of recent teen movies I've seen, for example, is considerable); I could become a Jungian; etc. etc. I found myself saying to someone recently that =almost= everything Jung says makes sense to me; but I have to lean on that "almost" a little. Jung was a practicing psychotherapist most of his life, pretty much on the Freudian model, considering himself a scientist, and I'm a little suspicious of that; he was also a bit credulous, believing in spiritualism in his youth (though debunking it a little later), and taking a lifelong interest in ESP and other dubious phenomena. And his alchemical works seem to me, on continuing examination, to have a lot in common with Frazer's =Golden Bough= and Graves' =The White Goddess=. Although by intention Frazer thought he was doing anthropology (i.e. science), and Jung thought he was doing psychology (i.e. science)--lord knows what Graves thought =he= was up to--in the end all three bodies of work are vast compendia of esoterica, about which it is truer to say a system has been imposed rather than discovered. In fact, the only major difference between those three and rough contemporaries like Tolkien or Eddison or Austin Tappan Wright (of =Islandia=)--or Ezra Pound in his =Cantos=- - -is that the latter group =knew- they were making stuff up. The Jung piece I'm working my way through right now is =The Psychology of the Transference=, which attempts to describe the analyst/patient relationship in psychoanalysis in terms of the alchemical symbolism of the =coniunctio= (or "chymical wedding"). It's wacky stuff. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2000 23:06:21 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/riley As I hinted before, I came to the same epiphany about Riley as Gayle (obsessed minds think alike), that he was (in Gayle's term) this season's "second Slayer." Characteristically, I'm going to present it in a more complicated manner. One of the tools I have found most useful in thinking about =Buffy= is a character chart I constructed for my essay-in-progress "Buffy's Shadows" (which the current presentation is another shy at): "Light" "Dark" Giles B Angel U Kendra F Faith F Willow Y Cordelia The beauty and coherence of this schema is that it organizes the constellation of characters around Buffy in a way that makes the tensions of the interactions, and the way in which they are "shadows," or mirrors, or outward signs, of her inner state, more visible. It's also a schema that can be profitably "read" according to a number of different systems of analysis: read vertically, it follows Dumezil's trifunctional division of society (priests/rulers; warriors; producers/general populace); it corresponds, horizontally, to Levi-Strauss' fundamental concept of two opposing terms mediated by a third (i.e. Buffy)--which is a version of Marxist dialectic; it can be read vertically =or= horizontally according to the superego/ego/id Freudian model. Its intrinsic meaning in the show is Buffy's journey from the "dark" side to the "light," though it's important to note that it isn't a case of going all the way to the light, but (as the visual structure suggests) finding a balance-point between the models of good behavior and the tempters of bad behavior. It's also important to realize that though the embodying characters illuminate and clarify the schema, they aren't governed by it; that is to say, although the whole method of generating new characters seems to be by exfoliating them from Buffy (or parts of her psyche) and/or doubling already existing characters, once created they are autonomous, with their own agendas and interactions, etc. They serve their "allegorical" purpose, but function outside it as well. And just as Dumezil was quick to point out mythological characters who "slipped" from one schema-level to another (cf. Odin and Thor in Norse mythology), it should be made clear that the same is true in the Buffy schema. Angel in particular is all over the map; his =basic= function is the "dark" counterpart to Giles (Buffy runs to him for advice just about as often), but he also fights beside her as a fellow warrior, and sometimes (notably in "What's My Line") in the same niche as Willow (which I think of as the "damsel in distress" position). Not to mention the fact that he jumps off the chart completely when he loses his soul... (The entire chart, just to be clear, is the "good" characters. "Light" and "dark" are not "good" and "evil.) Another example of "slippage" was during the 3rd season, where, with Kendra dead and Cordelia marginalized (on her way out of the show), the axes collapsed in such a way that Willow and Faith were put in direct opposition for Buffy's attention. (And again, Buffy moved towards the "light" or Willow side.) To amplify what I said in passing to Jennifer, note that the three characters on the "dark" side are now =out of the picture=: Angel and Cordelia off the show, Faith (at the moment) =hors de combat=. Meaning that symbolically Buffy has put them all behind her. But at the same time new characters come along to "double" previous functions: I think it's clear that Prof. Walsh fits onto the "dark" side opposite Giles (though her parallels to Angel, for the reasons I've already stated, are scant). Also consider this side-point: the character who fits into the niche vacated by Cordelia (at least as regards Xander) is Anya, a former demon who doesn't know how to act like a human being. What a comment on Cordelia! The other interesting complication here is that as Willow has come closer and closer to being co-protagonist, she's acquired her own schema; Giles is in the same position on her "chart" (which was more clearly seen when Jenny Calendar was alive and "doubling" Giles); Oz, of course, is in the "Angel" position. And Amy (and her mother) are witches at her same level who prefigure Willow's dabbling; and actually, Anya's original function (in "Doppelgangland") was as a "dark" witch tempting her to go too far. And note that she turned down the temptation Anya took up (to be a revenge demon). So does this mean Tara is on the side of the "light"? Too soon to tell. After all this prelude...I think it's pretty clear that Riley falls into the niche vacated by Kendra: trained warrior, loyal to a fault to his authority figure, a model to suggest "proper" behavior. Kendra wasn't really around enough, or long enough, to really forge a working relationship with Buffy the way Faith (sort of) did, so it's an opportunity to pick up a dropped ball. Hm. I'm sitting here wondering if that's it: all that prelude for =one= paragraph about Riley?? Maybe so. But since I've spent days trying to get this out, I'll throw it to the troops and see what you think. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 23:36:20 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: os/list administration Hi! David noted: >In their message headers, while "From" lists the address of the person >who sent the message, there is an additional line labeled "Reply To", and >that gives the address of the list. So if you hit your reply button, the >message goes to the list, not to the sender. (On my system a little >warning message appears telling you that this will happen.) > >I am wondering if it would be possible to install such a feature on this >list, or if this has been thought of and judged unfeasible or undesirable. It is possible to set the list up that way. As a default, lists at smoe are not set up that way, due to our extensive experience with problems caused by people inadvertently sending private replies to the list at large. However, I'm willing to change the list config to automatically reply to the list, if people really are having problems with the way it's set up now. E-mail me privately (just hit "reply" to this note :) with your vote. I'll comply with the majority decision. Thanks, +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 00:07:36 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/riley I find the "Buffy's Shadows" chart very useful to think about the set up in a large scale way, bearing in mind (as you say) that the characters are not homonculi and move around a bit. Your basic thesis is that the characters on the "dark" side (I think the old RPG terms lawful and chaotic might be more useful here) having vacated the board, new characters are moving in: Walsh to Angel's place as the chaotic priest, Anya into Cordelia's as the chaotic farmer, and that Riley is moving into Faith's as the chaotic warrior. But I think it's more complicated, and more interesting than that. Two points: first, that Faith, unlike Angel & Cordy, isn't gone: she's down but is rumored to be returning; while there is a long-standing gap for the role of lawful warrior. The second point is that while Walsh and the Initiative in general are chaotic, Riley isn't. He's got the straight-up wholesomeness that goes with the lawful personality. So if Faith returns, and continues to occupy her position as chaotic warrior, Riley might move more into the position of lawful warrior (which last season was basically Angel's backup role.) What makes this so interesting is that, if the schema holds, one can predict tension between Walsh and Riley, as he moves towards the lawful and she doesn't. But: it could be even more complicated than that, and for the rest of this I have Berni to thank. She points out that recently, both Giles and Willow have been moving towards the dark or chaotic: Giles after losing first his one job and then his other job; and Willow as she becomes less Nerd Girl and more Wicca Woman (and a powerful (?), partially uncontrolled (?) one too). Where could this be going? Not so far as that the lawful and chaotic characters exchange places (though it could happen: looking at this chart, I am reminded of some English folk-dancing patterns in which exchanging places with the person opposite you is the first thing you do), but certainly there's a muddle. Berni also points out that there's a fourth function in the show, which might be called that of the Fool. Xander is the lawful fool; Spike appears to be the chaotic one. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 00:00:58 -0800 From: "Vicki Varvello" Subject: [none] Donald, Just finished reading all the messages here. I've missed your "topic" so much!!! I'm so pleased this discussion group survives. Vicki V. Vicki@Castles.com - ----- Original Message ----- From: allenw To: meredith Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 3:01 PM Subject: Re: welcome > Glad to see the list is up! I must admit, I almost deleted the first > messages unread, assuming them to be spam; the name "stillpt" means > nothing to me. > I see that I have to reply to all recipients to get the reply to the > "stillpt@smoe.org" address. I expect this may cause confusion. > Allen > > > ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #29 ****************************