From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #54 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Saturday, March 4 2000 Volume 02 : Number 054 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/whoareyou ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/dumezil ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 06:47:20 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/whoareyou Like most of the others commenting, I found this week's episode a little disappointing. Faith did much less to mess up Buffy's life than we expected, though the expression on the restored Buffy's face when she realized Faith had had sex with Riley ("Oh no, not again," as the bowl of petunias would say) was priceless. As for Buffy, she had time in Faith's body to do almost nothing but escape and try to convince people that she was Buffy. I would have liked a sequence in which, for whatever plot reason, it was to Buffy's advantage to pretend to be Faith. I think she would have done a much better job of it than Faith did at being Buffy, on Tolkien's principle that good can imagine evil a lot better than evil can imagine good. In fact, Faith didn't seem to try to _pretend_ to be Buffy much at all. (Though there was that great sequence in the bathroom where she's trying out what she imagines is a Buffy way of talking, and top acting honors to SMG for playing someone who's trying to sound like her but _not succeeding very well_.) For the most part, Faith seemed content to behave like herself, in fact even more so than normal, perhaps in confidence that her disguise couldn't be penetrated. (And her confidence might not have been misplaced, as even Willow didn't even realize anything was really wrong.) I don't recall Faith sprawling her legs about so much as she did while talking with Willow and Tara, but then we've rarely seen Faith in a relaxed mood at all, have we? Two ambiguities on this count: 1) Why did she consent to have "vanilla sex" with Riley? I didn't get the impression it was because she realized Buffy wouldn't be that wanton. She already knew that, and even made remarks to that effect. I think it was because Riley talked her into it. Donald, I'd love your analysis of her cryptic post-coital conversation. Did it indeed mean she hadn't had an orgasm? If so, was it because she wasn't used to that kind of sex, or did it have something to do with Tara's point about the soul and the body not being seated well together? Or did it mean something entirely different? 2) Why did Faith fight vampires in this episode? It surely wasn't entirely because Buffy would do so, because for one thing Faith wasn't much concerned with acting like Buffy would, and for another, Faith has fought vampires herself. Certainly she didn't go after the ones in the church for that reason. OTOH, the one in the Bronze: Willow says, "Hey, there's a vampire over there"; Faith's reply is to the effect of, "Yeah, I already noticed", and she gets up with something of an air of "I'm only doing this because it's expected of me." Certainly the intended effect of this scene, ending with the thanks of the victim, is to shock Faith with a taste of "so this is what it's like to be Buffy", and I think the scene works that way, even though I find it hard to believe that Faith, as a slayer, had never been thanked by a victim before. Biggest problem with the episode was that so much air went out of it like a punctured balloon. Faith runs away (to appear on _Angel_ in a couple weeks, I gather: oh boy, lots of history there). The Owslafa [this term from _Watership Down_ seems the best one for the Council thugs], after that huge build-up last week, turn out to be hopeless, and THEY run away. As for Adam and his "purpose": I think he came up with that on his own. The impression I had from his earlier boring speeches was that he didn't know his purpose and was trying to find out. This still leaves open, however, the question of what the Initiative built him for. _Angel_ this week had an absolutely wonderful last line, but apart from that was one of the most inane yet. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 20:35:51 -0500 (EST) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/dumezil On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > Vol. II is available in English in three separate slim volumes: > > 1. =The Stakes of the Warrior= (U of California 1983) > 2. =The Plight of a Sorcerer= (U of California 1986) > 3. =The Destiny of a King= (U of Chicago 1973) > > I own the first and third (=Destiny of a King= is available as a > trade paperback); =Plight= I can neither find a copy to buy nor a > circulating copy. =Stakes= has been more important for =Buffy= > stuff. > We've got it here at Stanford - it's 120 pages long - if you really, really can't find it, I could, um, cause a copy to magically appear ... ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #54 ****************************