From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #40 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Sunday, February 20 2000 Volume 02 : Number 040 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: stillpt-digest V2 #39 ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] b/comments2/19 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/jung4 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/dharmabook ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/comments2/19 ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/ergonomics of weapons ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/comments2/19 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments2/19 [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ergonomics of weapons [Micole Sudberg ] Re: b/comments2/19 [meredith ] Re: b/ergonomics of weapons [meredith ] Re: b/comments2/19 [allenw ] Re: b/comments2/19 [allenw ] Re: Major Angel Spoilers inside. Delete now if you don't want to hear. [T] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:20:44 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #39 Don, you write, >Here is the table of contents, as I currently have it, > of: > > THE DHARMA OF BUFFY > > Introduction: "You've Thought Way Too Much About This" > 1. Buffy as Hero/Buffy as Superhero > 2. Buffy's Shadows > 3. Dumezil and Trifunctionality > a. The Three Functions of the Slayerettes > b. Aesir:Vanir > c. Pandavas::Slayerettes > 4. The Dharma of Buffy > a. Buffy the Kshatriya > b. Indra the Demonslayer > c. The Three Sins of the Slayers > 5. The Triple Father as Adversary > a. "Helpless" and =The Silence of the Lambs= > b. =Heathers= and "The Zeppo" Okay, this will pass for a "pamphlet," a longish academic brochure. If you want to kick yourself into actually DOING it, and maybe get it published, you should plan to come to the International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts in 2001. By then a) you'll have more material written for sure, b) both series will have advanced further, if not concluded, and c) you may have (hah!) the money to go. If you do, you can count on me feeding you a few times. You contact Tony Magistrale at that point (I have his e-mail; he's the section head for horror crit) and get him to place your presentation in a session. This is a no-brainer. ICFA does not turn away presenters. Do this in about October 2000. After you've presented, you fill out a form nominating it for publication in the proceedings volume and maybe get a couple of shills (me, me!) to do the same. This helps get it read by someone else besides the people who attended your session. If you want extra help getting your session placed well at the conference--i.e. NOT Wednesday afternoon or eight a.m.--talk to Bernadette and Arthur, who are tight with the ICFA system; I think Bernadette is a section head this year--and get them to find you some "cool people" who are doing something halfway compatible with Buffy. Being in a session with cool people will guarantee you don't get stuck in a Thursday 8am slot. Any questions? ; ) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:24:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments2/19 [The following comments are ones I've been meaning to make for about two weeks, in case anyone gets deja vu.] David: Congrats on the book publication. I'm trying to remember if it was Greenwood Press that did a volume called =Postmodern Fiction= about 15 years ago; I did entries therein on Le Guin and Gene Wolfe, and that was =my= first book publication. (Didn't you have something in Clute's =Encyclopedia of Fantasy=, though?) I'm glad you found the character schema useful; I certainly have as well. Yes, "law" and "chaos" would be equally good headers for the chart (though the terms go back =much= farther than RPG; Moorcock's Elric stories around 1960 at =least=), especially since "law" is one common translation for "dharma" and we thus (following Sanskrit scholarship) could label them "dharmic" and "adharmic." Note also that Ethan Rayne makes a distinction between "chaos" and "out of balance." Though I like the idea of Xander's Fool-nature, to my mind Xander's =real= function is outside the chart. Joss Whedon has said explicitly that Xander is his own =doppelganger= in the show, and thus has an "outsider" position. So from the creator himself comes Xander...and Buffy is Xander's (and therefore Joss Whedon's) =anima=; and once she is firmly center stage it seems to me the creative process went something like this: Buffy wants her normal life back (enter Cordelia), though she also recognizes the need to be a better student (enter Willow); she needs a mentor/supervisor to keep her centered (enter Giles); she inevitably will meet The Wrong Guy to get a crush on and tempt her away from her duties (enter Angel). It's only later that the series of Second Slayers enter to mirror her more directly. So Xander's function is to observe slightly from the outside (as dramatized in "The Zeppo"), though he also functions as a double of Willow as "Slayer sidekick" (both would protest the title, true). And here's another aspect of Xander: having had a crush on Buffy from Day One, he observes her as closely as anyone (even Willow), and a lot of the time =he knows what she's thinking=; and has no qualms about saying so--=especially= when it's something she can hardly admit to herself. So in that sense he does play the Fool--who says to the King (or the Hero in this case) what no one else dares to. (And as you note, this is also Spike's role, often enough.) Lastly, as you finally conclude yourself, and as I said earlier, I think Riley has been "dharmic" 2nd Slayer all along. A standup guy, Riley. Jennifer: You might get a few laughs (or maybe the willies) from Jung's =Psychology of the Transference=. Here's a paragraph from the back cover copy: "The bond between analyst and patient is shown to be analogous to the kinship libido [remember, Jung's concept of the libido is much broader than Freud's] between the alchemist-adept and his 'mystic sister'--a link also found in the complicated kinship marriages of certain primitive societies [i.e. cross-cousin marriages]." And this is from Jung's introductory chapter: "Suddenly [Freud] asked me out of the blue, 'And what do you think about the transference?' I replied with the deepest conviction that it was the alpha and omega of the analytical method, whereupon he said, 'Then you have grasped the main thing.'" So the importance of the issue of the transference was one of the few things that Freud and Jung agreed on, after a while. Was it the word "exfoliate" you struck by? No, it's not a technical term (nor intended to be), but rather a kind of poetic image, I guess (though some technical terms doubtless start that way). It's related, kinda sorta, to that line of Guy Davenport's I quoted once before: "The daedalian artist infolds, he makes a =complicatio=. We beholders are involved in an =explicatio=; we unfold to read." But first the artist has to spin out (like a spider) the =materia= (help! I'm alchemically infected) which he/she will then fold into the =complicatio=. Changing the image from animal to vegetable brings me to "exfoliate," or to put out leaves (pages, if you will). And as I was explaining to David above, that image seems to me to describe quite vividly the way I see the characters in =Buffy= occurring, unfolding out of Buffy to externalize various parts of her nature. I'm certainly aware that a lot of writers talk about their creative work as "discoveries" rather than their own creation; Le Guin for one wrote quite clearly about that. Jung of course would say that they're making themselves conduits for material from the collective unconscious, which is why it seems to come from "somewhere else" besides their own minds. Oh, I have no illusion that I'm commmiting science here; this is literary (or media) criticism, and if I spin a castle in the air that seems to cast even a little light on the object I'm observing, I'm not going to worry too much about how gossamer the "castle" is. What works in creative writing (not only fiction) seems to me more and more to be based on very very old archetypes, and it's really energizing to dig around in this stuff like I've been doing. The problem is that I =am= already reading 90 different books, and every time I follow down a new trail I have to decide whether I need to read =ten= books on a certain discipline, or whether two will do. Turns out one of my local Borders has a copy of Yates' =Rosicrucian Enlightenment= (the next time I have $25 to spend), and it does look like I need to look at it; seems to have quite a bit on Michael Maier, the alchemist I've taken the most interest in. Taking note of Carruthers, too, however. By the way: What is Enochian magic? I keep seeing books on it while I'm trolling through the "New Age" or "Mysticism" or "Magic" sections of bookstores; seems to relate to both John Dee and the Golden Dawn. One more general comment. I've noticed a drift in =Buffy=. in re demonology, from what one might call a "theological" (or "Slayerette" model), where demons are singular beings with specific names (fallen angels or demigods)--Moloch, Eyghon, Acathla, etc. etc. down to the demon the Mayor turned into--to a more "zoological" (or "Initiative") model, where demons fall into species with more than one of their kind, and often =without= names. I've been trying to figure out where the drift began; certainly there was the group of organ-harvesting demons in "Puppet Show," but since we only saw one of them it's hard to be sure; there was the group of demons in =Anne= also, no names =or= species name; as far as I can remember, then, the first species we hear about is the "Chaos demon" Spike mentions in "Lovers Walk." (Whistler in "Becoming" was the first demon we met who wasn't evil.) Certainly on =Angel= we have far more "species" demons than "individual" demons. It's a little bewildering. There was also the curious fact that the possessing demon in the last =Angel= was explicitly stated to be able to either manifest physically or possess a human "spiritually." Does this explain the demons that possess dead humans as vampires? Consistency of metaphysics is not a strong point of these shows. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:26:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/jung4 I've continued to spend a lot of time reading Jung over the last couple weeks, and in fact I've had a couple of Jungian moments myself. The first one came while I was reading some of Jung's "Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy" (a 100+-page essay on a series of dreams of someone else's patient; it's part of =Psychology and Alchemy=) and came across the following: "VISUAL IMPRESSION: The veiled woman uncovers her face. It shines like the sun." It should be pointed out here that Jung doesn't make any strong distinction between dreams, (hypnagogic) visual impressions (as above)--"hypnagogic" being the borderland between being awake and asleep (cf. the opening of Proust's =Swann's Way=)--and outright fantasizing (which he refers to as "active imagination"); they are all to him ways of accessing images from the unconscious. (So it's legitimate for me to put Buffy's "Hush" dream in the same category as her daydream in "Beer Bad.") Anyway...my reaction to this passage was that an image sprang into my head of a human figure with a sun for a head (and, since I'd been reading about the alchemical sun/moon relationship, a figure with a moon for a head as well). Then a week or so later I went to the NYPL Research Library and had them dig out of the stacks for me a reprint of Michael Maier's 1618 alchemical work =Atalanta fugiens=. (Confusingly, it seems to have an alternate title of =Scrutinium chymicum=, which is how Jung always cites it.) It's a fascinating book, consisting of 50 emblems (medium-sized line engravings) of alchemical symbolism, each of which has a title, a short verse epigraph, a two-voiced fugue(!) (as I mentioned in re Scelsi, some of these have been recorded on CD), and two pages of "discursus" on the meaning of the emblem. (Unfortunately, it's all in Latin, and I can only parse out little bits of it. There =is= an English translation, but it's out of print.) I had sought it out because the last of the 50 emblems shows the woman embracing the serpent in the grave (which I mentioned briefly before, and will talk about in more detail shortly). But imagine my surprise when I came across several emblems featuring human figures with suns and moons for heads!! Also I was forcibly struck by another emblem showing a walled rose- garden with a tall spiked gate with three locks. I've had this story-idea in my head for years which culminates in a rose-garden (borrowed from Eliot's "Burnt Norton") entered into via a door in a wall (cf. H.G. Wells' short story); this Michael Meier emblem instantly became another image to blend into the complex. (The title of the emblem says something like "he who would enter the philosophers' rose garden without a key is like one who tries to walk without feet." Weird stuff.) I'm also convinced, now, that Yeats' "The Song of Wandering Aengus" (a poem I've loved most of my life) is informed by alchemical symbolism. It's the one about the man with a "fire in his head" (sounds like me lately) whose caught fish turns into a "glimmering girl" and vanishes, and he's spent the rest of his life trying to find her again. And it ends with that famous image "The silver apples of the moon/The golden apples of the sun" borrowed by Bradbury among others. There's another alchemical emblem-book that shows a group of trees, some with suns hanging like fruit from their branches, and some with moons. And the whole poem, which conventionally can be seen as an encounter with Faerie, could also (without contradiction) be seen as an encounter with the anima, in Jungian terms. And I'm also convinced that the recent film =American Beauty= can be interpreted in alchemical terms (especially all the rose-imagery). I also had a dream recently which got me thinking along Jungian lines: I was preparing to drive up to famed editor David Hartwell's house (where I used to go every month to work on =The New York Review of Science Fiction=), and since I hadn't driven in a long time and had always taken the train there, I was at some pains to get directions to get there. That's the whole of the dream. The interesting thing is, this is a dream that I've had for like 30 years, the same "frame" but different details; I'm always =about to= travel to somewhere I've been before but not for a while, where someone I know lives, and I'm concerned about proper preparation for the trip. Sometimes the dream extends to my getting there, but not usually. Since the dream recurs at intervals and seems quite independent of whatever (very different things) is occuring in my life, my guess is that it doesn't have =direct= relevance to what's going on, but is some kind of message from my deep unconscious, what I'm not sure. But it makes clear to me the Jungian archetype: a consistent =structure= of symbols which manifests itself =only= when it's filled with content from life-experience (which can be different each time it occurs). And this applies to myth-patterns and alchemical symbolism as well: they're just abstractions until actualized (brought into consciousness) by content (of which =Buffy= is as good an example as any). ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:32:12 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/dharmabook >From: "Donald G. Keller" >To annotate briefly: the introduction would set the stage, briefly >describing the show and justifying my attention toward it (the quote is >Willow to Xander in "Innocence" re Buffy). "Buffy as Hero/Buffy as >Superhero" would relate her "hero's journey" to Joseph Campbell's monomyth >in =The Hero with a Thousand Faces= (to establish the show's =fundamental= >mythicity), and then to distinguish the ways in which Buffy =doesn't= >follow that pattern (no extraordinary birth, for example) because she >follows the superhero pattern. (This is the weakest part of my exposition >because I don't have to hand any critical literature on superheroes, and >it's not a part of pop culture I know very well. I wish I could simply do >without this first part, but I don't see how I can.) Lucky for you I've been reading super-hero comics since I was 8! I would say that the super-hero Buffy is closest to in spirit is DC's Green Lantern. This is a super-hero who is given a magical ring. The person is chosen based on his/her lack of fear, and the ring operates by willpower. (It has to be mystically recharged every 24 hours, but it is the will which actually operates it.) I find this closest to Buffy because of the Chosen One analogy and how Buffy's will is her greatest strength. You can call her enhanced abilities her ring substitute. Most super-heroes are created by accident or by birth. Those created by accident include Marvel's Fantastic Four (Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Girl/Woman, the Thing, and the Human Torch), whose rocket flew through cosmic rays or somesuch, giving them powers. Marvel's Hulk was created by gamma rays, Bruce Banner accidentally getting bombarded by them. Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider. DC's Flash, at least the previous one, was a police scientist (is that an oxymoron?) who got super- speed when lightning struck his chemicals and they rained down on him. (The current Flash, the former Kid Flash partner, was created the same why, I think, but I can't recall exactly.) Batman, who has no super-powers but who counts as a super-hero, trained himself to perfection after his parents were murdered. Those whose powers are their birthright include Marvel's millions of mutants (the X-Men and company), Superman, Wonder Woman, and many others who are less well known. Those who are chosen to be given powers are very few. I'm looking forward to seeing you dharmabook all written up! Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:47:08 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 - ---------- >From: "Donald G. Keller" >Lastly, as you finally conclude yourself, and as I said earlier, I think >Riley has been "dharmic" 2nd Slayer all along. A standup guy, Riley. Back to the comics theme, I see him as Steve Trevor to Buffy's Wonder Woman. Oo, now I'm flashing on Xena with Gabrielle and Joxer as Buffy, Willow, and Xander. >One more general comment. I've noticed a drift in =Buffy=. in re >demonology, from what one might call a "theological" (or >"Slayerette" model), where demons are singular beings with specific names >(fallen angels or demigods)--Moloch, Eyghon, Acathla, etc. etc. down to >the demon the Mayor turned into--to a more "zoological" (or >"Initiative") model, where demons fall into species with more than one of >their kind, and often =without= names. I've been trying to figure out >where the drift began; certainly there was the group of organ-harvesting >demons in "Puppet Show," but since we only saw one of them it's hard to be >sure; there was the group of demons in =Anne= also, no names =or= species >name; as far as I can remember, then, the first species we hear about is >the "Chaos demon" Spike mentions in "Lovers Walk." (Whistler in >"Becoming" was the first demon we met who wasn't evil.) Certainly on >=Angel= we have far more "species" demons than "individual" demons. It's a >little bewildering. > >There was also the curious fact that the possessing demon in the last >=Angel= was explicitly stated to be able to either manifest physically or >possess a human "spiritually." Does this explain the demons that possess >dead humans as vampires? Consistency of metaphysics is not a strong point >of these shows. This inconsistency in the nature of demons is starting to bother me, too. I was also annoyed in the exorcism in the most recent Angel. It is not just the ritual that's important, it is also that the exorcist is a holy man, which I don't think Wesley can claim to be. I was expecting them to ask the nun, who obviously knows about all this stuff, to do it and that she would refuse, saying it had to be a priest. The words have to be backed up by the supernatural power. (We won't get into the inappropriateness of holy water being sold at the magic shop. You don't sell holy water. You can sell empty bottles that say "Holy Water" which the faithful can fill up at their local church, but no one sells holy water.) Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 17:57:37 -0800 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/ergonomics of weapons - ---------- >From: "Donald G. Keller" >About a year ago a coworker of mine in the proofreading department >at the investment bank where we work pointed out a curious >phenomenon concerning the bankers and their beepers. While most of >them wore it in what might be termed "holster" position (right side >front of the belt) and a few of them wore it in "wallet" position >(right side rear of the belt), a substantial number of the women >bankers wore theirs square in the small of their backs. Which struck >us as an odd and awkward position. It's not odd and awkward for women. There's sort of a natural hollow there where the beeper fits nicely and it feels balanced. Also, many of us carry our purses on the right side, and you don't want the purse and the beeper banging together. > >So you can imagine my amusement during "The 'I' in Team" when Buffy >stowed her new beeper in the small of her back... Berni ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:00:35 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 In a message dated 2/19/00 5:28:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << we thus (following Sanskrit scholarship) could label them "dharmic" and "adharmic." >> There very likely exists a Sanskrit word very close to "adharmic" because the prefix "a-" meaning "without" is used in Sanskrit -- but the "-ic" suffix is not. Shouldn't be too hard to find out the actual Sanskrit adjective meaning "without dharma." Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:00:51 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 In a message dated 2/19/00 5:28:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << Was it the word "exfoliate" you struck by? No, it's not a technical term (nor intended to be), but rather a kind of poetic image, I guess ....Changing the image from animal to vegetable brings me to "exfoliate," or to put out leaves (pages, if you will). >> Ha! I interpreted the "exfoliate" metaphor according to the sense of "exfoliate" that means to remove or shed skin cells! (I know its original meaning refers to leaves, but Buffy doesn't have leaves, and she does have skin cells.) IOW, the other characters rain from her like dandruff. Truly a vivid and compelling image. I thought it was quite poetic. ;-) Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:09:58 -0500 From: Micole Sudberg Subject: Re: b/ergonomics of weapons Did everyone else get the original "b/dharmabook" and "b/ergonomics of weapons" message? Because I got Berni's responses, but not initial messages from Donald with those subject lines, and I'm wondering whether it's the list or my Internet provider. I wear my beeper in my front jeans pocket, but then I wear a backpack; it would be uncomfortable to have that pressing a beeper into the small of my back - --m. At 05:57 PM 2/19/00 -0800, you wrote: > >---------- >>From: "Donald G. Keller" > >>About a year ago a coworker of mine in the proofreading department >>at the investment bank where we work pointed out a curious >>phenomenon concerning the bankers and their beepers. While most of >>them wore it in what might be termed "holster" position (right side >>front of the belt) and a few of them wore it in "wallet" position >>(right side rear of the belt), a substantial number of the women >>bankers wore theirs square in the small of their backs. Which struck >>us as an odd and awkward position. > >It's not odd and awkward for women. There's sort of a natural hollow >there where the beeper fits nicely and it feels balanced. Also, >many of us carry our purses on the right side, and you don't want >the purse and the beeper banging together. > >> >>So you can imagine my amusement during "The 'I' in Team" when Buffy >>stowed her new beeper in the small of her back... > >Berni > > - -- "It struck me as pretty ridiculous to be called Mr. Darcy and to stand on your own looking snooty at a party. It's like being called Heathcliff and insisting on spending the entire evening in the garden, shouting 'Cathy' and banging your head against a tree."--Helen Fielding, =Bridget Jones's Diary= ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:04:06 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 Hi! Berni commented: >Oo, now I'm flashing on Xena with Gabrielle and Joxer as Buffy, Willow, >and Xander. I've thought of this myself. It makes perfect sense. (There's no real Cordelia parallel in the Xenaverse, alas.) And don't forget Faith as Buffy's Callisto. How delicious. :) Just so long as Whedon doesn't start trying to dispose of Faith by repeatedly dumping a pile of rocks on her, we'll be fine. ;) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:01:50 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/ergonomics of weapons Hi! Micole wondered: >Did everyone else get the original "b/dharmabook" and "b/ergonomics of >weapons" message? Because I got Berni's responses, but not initial >messages from Donald with those subject lines, and I'm wondering whether >it's the list or my Internet provider. Those messages went out to the list fine. Juno might have had another attack of momentary indigestion. :) Speaking of which, do any of you recently former GEnie-ites know whether the mail server @genie.idt.net was scheduled to go away as of the past day or two? Every message that's gone to the list since yesterday has bounced back to me from David Bratman with a "host unknown" notation. I usually remove someone from one of my lists once I get three bounces from their address, but in this case I don't want to jump the gun. >I wear my beeper in my front jeans pocket, but then I wear a backpack; it >would be uncomfortable to have that pressing a beeper into the small of my >back I wear mine in my left front jeans pocket as well. It never would occur to me to wear it anywhere else, particularly in the small of my back. But then again I've never done things in quite the expected way. :) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:11:23 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/19/00 5:28:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com > writes: > << > Was it the word "exfoliate" you struck by? No, it's not a technical > term (nor intended to be), but rather a kind of poetic image, I > guess > > ....Changing the image from animal to vegetable > brings me to "exfoliate," or to put out leaves (pages, if you will). > >> > Ha! I interpreted the "exfoliate" metaphor according to the sense of > "exfoliate" that means to remove or shed skin cells! (I know its original > meaning refers to leaves, but Buffy doesn't have leaves, and she does have > skin cells.) > > IOW, the other characters rain from her like dandruff. Truly a vivid and > compelling image. I thought it was quite poetic. ;-) I was also assuming that usage, with other characters "peeled off" from Buffy. It fit nicely with my Tara-as-literal-projection-of-Willow theory (which I've since had to discard). -Allen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 23:13:53 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/comments2/19 On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, meredith wrote: > Hi! > > Berni commented: > > >Oo, now I'm flashing on Xena with Gabrielle and Joxer as Buffy, Willow, > >and Xander. > > I've thought of this myself. It makes perfect sense. (There's no real > Cordelia parallel in the Xenaverse, alas.) Perhaps some unholy combination of Ares and Aphrodite? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 22:42:54 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: Major Angel Spoilers inside. Delete now if you don't want to hear. I'm not kidding. This appeared on Dark Horizons and they're usually fairly reliable. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Later this season, word is that Wolfram and Hart will hire Faith to kill Angel. I was wondering when they'd take a larger role so we could get more of an arc going with the show. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #40 ****************************