From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #45 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, February 25 2000 Volume 02 : Number 045 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/This Year's Girl [Dori ] Re: b/comments2/23 [Dori ] Re: b/Angel [Dori ] Re: b/This Year's Girl [GHighPine@aol.com] b/ little sis [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/Angel [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/This Year's Girl [allenw ] b/ some speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ some speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ some speculations ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/ some speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/This Year's Girl [Dori ] b/ upcoming eps [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ some speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/ some speculations [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/this year's girl [meredith ] b/comments2/24 ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/ upcoming eps [allenw ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:13:11 -0500 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/This Year's Girl allenw said: > And I was thinking of the same solution you were, Donald, from the same >episode. Which will almost certainly involve both Willow and Tara, and >serve to introduce Tara to the gang Okay, I'm slow... Can you give me a a bigger hint, here? - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Funny how things you think are black and white can go gray on you. A.G. Artis - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:15:16 -0500 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/comments2/23 Berni said: >And, please Lord, don't send us another slayer! I think they're setting us up for that, though. That line in the first dream, about getting ready for little sis, who's coming, I know Joss was setting something up with that, and unless Joyce is pregnant, a new Slayer makes a lot of sense of that line. Of course, Joss being Joss, it'll be something completely different... - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Funny how things you think are black and white can go gray on you. A.G. Artis - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:15:26 -0500 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/Angel >The scene in which the newly-vamped Angel appears in >the graveyard -- why can we see the vampires' breaths condensing? >Couldn't the filmmakers even bother to edit that out? The thing I wanted to know about that scene was why Angel got to rise with his human face on, when we've seen over and over and =over= in Buffy that new vamps come out of the ground in game face. I guess Angel's just...=special=. - -- Dori cleindor@cfw.com cleindori@rica.net - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Funny how things you think are black and white can go gray on you. A.G. Artis - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:54 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/This Year's Girl In a message dated 2/23/00 9:46:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << Faith's dreams struck me as very interesting indeed. I don't see them either as attempts to whip up a little sympathy for Faith, or as demonstrations of how warped Faith is, but simply as a chance to view Buffy through Faith's eyes. Buffy does have a confident, take-charge side that comes out a lot (for instance this week in her plan to hunt for Riley), only slightly removed from cold arrogance. It makes sense for Faith to view Buffy that way, particularly as I think Faith has an inferiority complex on the subject. >> I agree with all of that. That is how I interpreted the dreams (or what they were supposed to communicate to us) too. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:59 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/ little sis In a message dated 2/23/00 7:12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << BUFFY: I wish I could stay, but... FAITH: No, you have to go. BUFFY: It's just with... FAITH: ...little sis coming. I know. So much to do before she gets here. >> "Little sis" could be interpreted as Faith. (Especially with "here" being Buffy's bedroom.) "So much to do" seems deliberately ambiguous about =who= has so much to do, but in context it can easily refer only to Buffy. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:21:58 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/Angel In a message dated 2/23/00 9:54:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << One other thing about this week's ANGEL that both Berni and I forgot to mention earlier. The scene in which the newly-vamped Angel appears in the graveyard -- why can we see the vampires' breaths condensing? Couldn't the filmmakers even bother to edit that out? >> Well, considering that even multi-tens-of-millions movies seem unable to edit IN breath condensation (even TITANIC, the most expensive movie in history, did it only at the end, and they are the first movie I have ever heard of doing it at all -- it always "brings me out" of a movie, reminding me it is all a composite with the actors in a studio, when people are supposed to be on a snowy mountain or whatever and there is no breath condensation) it may not be an easy trick to edit it out. Though it seems that it would be, digitally, doesn't it? (Did y'all know how Taco Bell dog's lips move? Someone actually does it manually and then the hands are digitally erased.) Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:53:51 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/This Year's Girl On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Dori wrote: > allenw said: > > And I was thinking of the same solution you were, Donald, from the same > >episode. Which will almost certainly involve both Willow and Tara, and > >serve to introduce Tara to the gang > Okay, I'm slow... Can you give me a a bigger hint, here? > -- Dori, Well, it's not really a spoiler, just speculation, except for anyone who hasn't seen "This Year's Girl" yet... SPOILER FOR JUST-AIRED EPISODE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The problem being solved is the body-swapping. The previous instance of body-swapping was in Buffy Episode #2, "The Witch", in which the witch Catherine Madison switched bodies with her daughter Amy in order to re-live her cheerleader glories. Mommy Catherine went on to become a cheerleading trophy; Daughter Amy went on to become a witch in her own right, and later on a rat. So, the speculation is that the current swap will be undone via witchcraft, which almost certainly means via Willow and Tara. I've also been speculating about some sort of relationship between Tara and Amy, so I'm hoping that if Amy's case is mentioned Tara may say or do something revelatory. -Allen ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:38:23 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/ some speculations Adam. Seems to come out of left field with no connection to any of the themes of the arc. And a boring, cliched villain. Yet Joss is willing to use cliched plots in order to serve larger character themes (ex: "Earshot," body-switch ep coming up). Hm. One clue: didn't Adam refer to Walsh as =both= his and Riley's "mother" and something about Riley as his "brother"? Plot speculation: Adam is genetically related to Riley. Theme speculation: Adam represents Riley's shadow somehow. Triple pairing of characters and shadows: Buffy / Faith, Willow / Tara, Riley / Adam. Watcher's Council. (Hm, the similarity of "Watcher" and "Walsh" just hit me.) I speculate that, holding Buffy-who-they-think-is-Faith, they will do something unexpected. What? Well, if I expected it, it would no longer be unexpected, would it, hm? I think that in the initial scenes between Buffy and the Watchers' Council, we'll be led to expect punishment, imprisonment, perhaps execution? Yet ... hm, now I see how certain things were set up way back with Giles' cryptic remarks about them dealing with this problem in the past... what if there's a parallel with the Initiative's operant conditioning. Antique methods of conditioning that parallel or contrast with the Initiative's hi-tech methods. Parallels between what this and what the Initiative has done or is doing with Riley. Going further out on a limb, I speculate that the Watchers' Council will think that they have succeeded, and that WE will be led to wonder (very briefly) if they have succeeded, and again, this will tie into the theme of control and authority. (Their techniques may not be unambiguously evil -- we may think if they had had the chance to rehabilitate Faith, it might have done her some good. But their methods may fail on Buffy for precisely the reason that the methods were not intended for Buffy.) And that perhaps they will think that they now have an ally against the bad Buffy and send their new, rehabilitated Faith after the rogue Buffy... And I predict that we will see Quentin Travers in the next ep. (duh) Faith -- I predict that she will survive and end up at large, showing up periodically as recurring troublemaker, and showing up periodically in Buffy's cryptic dreams. Allen, good point about the tie-in between witchcraft and body-swapping before! Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:44:00 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ some speculations In a message dated 2/24/00 10:05:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, kenneth.houghton@us.pwcglobal.com writes: << Nah; she's going to Lo Angeles. (Which makes sense; after she exacts whatever sort of revenge/reconciliation she can with Buffy this episode, the person against whom she holds the greatest grudge is still Angel. After all, he's the one about whom she was most passionate last episode.) ken > Faith -- I predict that she will survive and end up at large, showing up > periodically as recurring troublemaker, and showing up periodically in > Buffy's cryptic dreams. >> Well, that is a confirmation of my speculation, then, isn't it? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 14:39:38 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/ some speculations Gayle wrote: > Watcher's Council. (Hm, the similarity of "Watcher" and "Walsh" just hit > me.) What similarity of "Watcher" and "Walsh"? The first two letters? That's not enough to make a similarity (unless one has some other evidence that it was intended). I can do that: Willow, known as Will = Will Robinson. "Danger, Will Robinson!" Is sure to get in trouble. Xander = homophonic with Zander = zap. Plays with zap guns = blasters. Faith = Fay or Faerie. She's actually an elf. Oz. No comment necessary. Not in Kansas any more. Kansas = Midwestern state = Iowa = Riley. Is Oz related to Riley? Riley's relatives = Adam as his "brother". That's it, they MADE ADAM'S HUMAN PARTS OUT OF OZ!!!! Boy, you really can prove anything this way, can't you? I'm going away for the weekend, to clear my head. See you on Monday. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:41:53 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ some speculations In a message dated 2/24/00 11:46:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << What similarity of "Watcher" and "Walsh"? The first two letters? That's not enough to make a similarity >> Similarity being a matter of degree, I'm not sure how you manage to quantify features in order to draw such a sharp and definite boundary between the classes "similar" and "nonsimilar." However, the commonalities consist not only of the first two letters (and the fact that the vowel is pronounced the same and the fact that the fifth letter is the same); in both words the third consonant sound is alveolar, the fourth consonant sound a dental fricative. That is a 100% correspondence for the four sounds in "Walsh." Not only that, but both words derive from Old English, both are spelled with the Roman alphabet, both are capitalized in this context, both words consist of phosphors when they appear on the computer screen, both are probably found in some telephone books, both have their derivations found on odd-numbered, four-digit-numbered pages in my dictionary... whatever the minimum number of points of similarity that you require in order to officially place two items in the "similar" category, I could probably meet your quota. (My dictionary is infuriating unspecific on the matter. It defines "similar" as "showing some resemblance," and "some" as "an unspecified number or part." Maybe your dictionary is more helpful.) Since you talk about proving things, what is it that you need to prove or feel needs to be proven? You seem to be reading things that are not there. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:52:48 -0800 From: Dori Subject: Re: b/This Year's Girl Ah, thanks, Allen. I was confused about the ep numbers. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:25:30 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/ upcoming eps In a message dated 2/21/00 9:45:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com writes: << Episode 17 is rumored to be "Superstar". Episode 18 is rumored to be "Where the Wild Things Are". >> Wonder if "Where the Wild Things Are" connects with "Wild At Heart"? IOW, if that's the ep in which the Willow / Oz plot thread intersects with the Willow / Tara plot thread. (And Tara and Oz fall in love...) I wish we could get guest star info for upcoming eps. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:24:23 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ some speculations In a message dated 2/24/00 11:46:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << What similarity of "Watcher" and "Walsh"? The first two letters? That's not enough to make a similarity ... Willow. known as Will = Will Robinson ... Oz...Oz >> David -- Just to clarify, are you saying that these names =are= or are =not = similar? I can understand that, by your rules, "Oz" is not similar to "Oz" because only the first two letters are the same. But "Willow" (or "Will" as she is known for short) and "Will" have four letters that are the same. Even four consecutive matching letters and identical pronunciation do not constitute a similarity? How many letters must be the same in order for two words to be similar? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:24:13 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ some speculations ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:03:57 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/this year's girl Hi! David complained: >After some problems with my e-mail server over the weekend, I'm back on >the list. I think. Anyway, I've gotten a couple messages overnight. I >have to say that the new smoe "key confirmation" signon system (more >complicated than their previous system) sucks, and thanks to Meredith for >bypassing it for me. Actually (always have to step up to defend my system here :), it's not a new key confirmation system. It's the same one that's always been in place. The problem you had responding to that, as well as the problems you had receiving mail from the list were due to a name server problem at Media One, the ISP that services smoe.org. Fortunately the supreme leader of smoe.org, Jeff Wasilko is also in a position to be able to fix that problem at Media One, so once we figured out what was going on he rebooted the name servers and everything should be fine now. +==========================================================================+ | 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, 24 Feb 2000 22:22:54 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments2/24 Had to stay late at work today, then when I got home I called my daughter and we talked for a good long while (not only about this week's episode, but about "Surprise"/"Innocence" which she'd just rented and seen for the first--and second and third--time). Which pretty much did in my writing time for tonight, so I won't get around to dream-analysis just yet. Tomorrow I'll plan better for it. Berni: No, no, no, sorry, I meant to imply no such equation as silly hair = curly hair. (Whatever adjective I might choose to refer to Felicity's ex-hair, for example, "silly" would be way down the list.) The equation I'm making is more like silly hair = I-didn't-bother-to-brush-my hair. (Faith's hair is pretty straight, by the way.) We first noticed this syndrome in "The Zeppo," where Buffy's hair looked really strange, but it made sense since the episode was a parody. And the previous episode this season where Buffy wasn't quite "herself"--"Something Blue"--featured an unkempt hairstyle as well. By sheer coincidence, I was leafing through a fairly recent =Rolling Stone= that was lying around work today (2/3/00, the one with the Melissa Etheridge paternity story on the cover), and came across side-by-side photographs of teenpopstar Christina Aguilera at two recent public appearances; the captions referred to her as "Bad-hair Aguilera" in one and "Good-hair Aguilera" in the other. The resemblance (down to the hair color) to "Silly-hair Buffy" and "Normal-hair Buffy" was downright eerie. One of the things Deirdre and I discussed tonight was Faith's knife; now that it has made such a prominent appearance in all three parts of Faith's dream-trilogy, the question arises: =where is it=? The last we saw of it was in Buffy's hand when she was taunting the Mayor-demonsnake in =GDII=. In search of answers, I pulled out my tape tonight and tried to determine what happened to it. But my tape is too grainy (and my TV too dark, hi Meredith) to be sure. It looks as though Buffy still had the knife in her left hand as she ran into the school, down the halls and into the library, and even as she vaulted the railing to the upstairs portion. But she =doesn't= seem to have it when she's running back down the hall and through the window to rendezvous with Giles at the detonator. So did she leave it on a shelf in the upstairs library (did she need two hands to open the back way out--which we've never seen, by the bye)? Or what? If anyone has a cleaner tape and can offer some eyewitness account, I'd be grateful. If it =is= still in the library...it's up for grabs, meaning that Faith might come across it. (And remember that Buffy left it behind once before, at the "Grad Day" cliffhanger, and had to go back for it.) It has, of course, a symbolic weight far in excess of its quite fearsome appearance and destructive capability. By the way, one tiny addition to the first dream transcription--I meant to go back and check and didn't until tonight: it takes place in Buffy's bedroom. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:13:12 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: Re: b/ upcoming eps On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 2/21/00 9:45:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, allenw@io.com > writes: > << > Episode 17 is rumored to be "Superstar". > Episode 18 is rumored to be "Where the Wild Things Are". > >> > Wonder if "Where the Wild Things Are" connects with "Wild At Heart"? IOW, > if that's the ep in which the Willow / Oz plot thread intersects with the > Willow / Tara plot thread. (And Tara and Oz fall in love...) I wish we > could get guest star info for upcoming eps. I also thought from the title that #18 would be the Oz-returns episode, and it may well be. All I've heard about it, however, is that's it's a big Xander/Anya episode. #17, "Superstar", is confirmed to revolve around guest star Danny Strong ("Jonathan" from seasons 2-3, partially explaining why they just reran his previous key episode, "Earshot"). -Allen ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #45 ****************************