From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #64 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, March 20 2000 Volume 02 : Number 064 Today's Subjects: ----------------- comments3/19 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/gothic? ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/upcoming ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/Tara, the College-Age Non-Witch? [allenw ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:02:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: comments3/19 Allen: Thanks! "10 a.m.'s your earliest flight?" That's the line I couldn't understand at all; and even being able to parse it, I still have to say that SMG kind of muttered it. I'm afraid that my Faith Redeemed post (which took a couple of days to get done) may have wandered from my point, or not made it clearly enough. I'm not saying that anyone is saying Faith =is= redeemed; but rather, that at several crux points people (including Buffy) assume Faith is =about to be= redeemed; but =so far= we continue to have Faith Unrepentant (a really obscure literary reference: =Weird Tales= writer Clark Ashton Smith wrote a longish poem called "Satan Unrepentant"). And I think it's more likely that she's =still= unrepentant. And I don't think that it's a binary choice, that when Faith-as- Buffy went to the church she was either redeemed =or= self- delusional; I think that Faith =is= a Slayer in the fullest sense and =does= take the responsibility (as well as the perks!) of being the Slayer seriously (as those "philosophical dialogs" with Buffy in "Bad Girls"/"Consequences" indicate). Faith =likes= being a Slayer even more than Buffy does, and her only real problem is that she's =not= "the one and only." Susan: Yes, it is plausible that F/B would burst out with something that would refer to herself, under stress; she =does= get a frightened/uncertain look in her eye at times in previous episodes, then visibly snaps herself out of it. And it's especially plausible under the circumstances, when (as Bob points out) there's a certain blurring of identity: is she Buffy? or is she Faith? (and they =are= doubles of one another in many important ways). Pulling a step back, though, as Gayle and others have noted, =whatever= the "internal" meaning of Faith's outburst, the "external" meaning--i.e. our interpretation--could go either way...or even both simultaneously. Jennifer brings up an important point, too, by the way, that it's "narratologically imperative" that Faith redeem herself: she has to decide =for herself= that Being Good is to her advantage. Buffy her "murderously critical mother" (great phrase!) can't convince her; Angel Buffy's "other shadow" can't convince her; like Buffy she won't follow orders; she has, like Buffy (like Willow too), to =want= to Do Good, to follow those orders she was going to do anyway, as Buffy put it. (It will be interesting, when Faith shows up on =Angel=, to see if they take up again that interrupted talk Angel had with Faith in "Consequences" about "not having to go into the dark"--which of course she almost immediately did.) [I had more comments, but this is as far as I got today. More tomorrow, I hope. Two other posts I did finish follow...] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:04:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/gothic? Entry-surfing through =The Encyclopedia of Fantasy= is a daunting enterprise. It's rather an EDIFICE (see below) of a book; it's very long, its arguments are labyrinthine and often distributed among a cross-referenced set of entries. I have to admit that I rather incautiously parroted an idea that I found at the end of the entry for GOTHIC FANTASY (written by Mike Ashley), to wit: "The cityscape has replaced the old castle and URBAN FANTASY is the new Gothic." Perhaps Ashley's sentence implies (or we infer) too much; the remainder of the entries I'll mention here (in brutal summary, take note) are by the editor himself, John Clute. When we turn to the entry URBAN FANTASY we read "UFs [entry titles are referred to by initials in the entry text--DGK] are normally texts where fantasy and the mundane world intersect and interweave throughout a tale which is significantly =about= a real city." No mention of them being specifically Gothic...or horror, for that matter. But "It is reasonable to argue that UFs derive primarily from the notion of the EDIFICE..." which originates in--is the "key component" of--GOTHIC FANTASY [re-referring to that entry]. But even Gothic as defined in Ashley's entry is =not= specifically supernatural or horror. (Daphne du Maurier's =Rebecca=, one of the key Gothics of the 20th century, is primarily a romance, generically.) For the record, an EDIFICE is "more than a house and less than a CITY," and among the examples listed are Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast and the house in Crowley's =Little Big=. DE LINT is described in his entry as CONTEMPORARY FANTASY (cross- referenced to URBAN FANTASY). And Emma BULL's =War for the Oaks= is in the same sentence described as an important work in CONTEMPORARY FANTASY and URBAN FANTASY. CONTEMPORARY FANTASY: "A CF is...a CROSSHATCH in which radically different realms co-exist..." "Many texts can be described simultaneously as CF and URBAN FANTASY." The upshot is that, I think, the =Encyclopedia= is actually consistent, if you read through it carefully; the problem is the implication that Gothic = horror. None of this applies to =Buffy=, of course, which although it shares some tropes with de Lint or Bull, certainly =is= primarily horror. But it's a sign of =Buffy='s multivalent nature that it can be defined as CONTEMPORARY FANTASY, or URBAN FANTASY, or SUPERNATURAL FICTION, or HORROR, or GOTHIC FANTASY, or probably a bunch of other things. This illustrates 1) the way these subgenres are a spectrum or gradation (and not clear-cut) 2) the way that =Buffy= itself is polygeneric. One interesting aspect is that the show is not only =contemporary= Gothic, but "classic" Gothic as well: you have quite a few characters (Giles for one) who speak what might be described as 19th Century Gothic Portentous (consider that line by Balthazar, the tub-demon in "Bad Girls" which I just watched again last night: "Slayer...you think you've won...but when He rises, you will wish I'd killed you all"), which is in constant contrast with the younger characters' =Clueless=-speak. Similarly, the high school was always as much of a Gothic castle (dungeons, etc.) as any contemporary building could be; add to this Angel's mansion as well. It =is= true that there is a difference in "genre" moving from =Heathers= (black comedy) to =Clueless= (much gentler comedy, though still satirical) to =Buffy= (comic surface but =primarily= drama, even tragedy). A similar sequence can be seen in Austen (social comedy, a little more acid than its emulator =Clueless=), =Jane Eyre= (a social-comedy surface over Gothic-influenced romance) to =Wuthering Heights= (practically pure Gothic). I think the similarities between the works in the two sequences (and between the two sequences, for that matter) are stronger than the relatively-superficial differences. Consider the fact that =Buffy= has entire episodes ("Doppelgangland" last season, "Something Blue" this season) which are =primarily= comedies, although of course horrible things happen. (And both have scenes of pure grief mixed.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:05:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/upcoming Early warning for the rerun schedule. They've returned to the Monday-also schedule for =Buffy=, and tomorrow (3/20) they're rerunning "The Prom," one of last year's better episodes. (Good thing, too: my current tape copy is poor quality.) (Students of the incidental music of the show--which has continued to be excellent this season--might want to note the first and fullest appearance of what I think of as "Buffy & Angel Theme #3-- The Breakup," which comes in just after Angel's key line in the sewer breakup scene, "I don't," and carries through the following wordless sitting-on-the-roof scene. It has distinctly Vaughan Williamsesque characteristics, and just may be my favorite of the three themes. It also makes brief appearances later in the episode in the meatpacking plant scene and the Giles & Buffy scene that ends "Kicking ass is comfort food." Also in "Graduation Day" II in the "I'm not saying goodbye" scene and in the lingering-look scene just before the end.) Tuesday 3/21 is "Hush," this season's best episode and winner of the =TV Guide= poll for best-ever episode. The Gentlemen, no spoken dialogue most of the episode, that opening dream...what more can I say? And the Angel episode "Somnambulist," where Kate discovers Angel is a vampire; one of the best of that show's initial season. Monday 3/27 they're rerunning "Graduation Day" I (with II to follow the following Monday, I suspect, and probably more reruns that Tuesday); Tuesday 3/28 the crossover Buffy/Angel episodes "Pangs" and "I Will Remember You." At least if it has to be reruns they're really good ones. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:40:47 -0600 (EST) From: allenw Subject: b/Tara, the College-Age Non-Witch? So, I was re-watching "Who Are You?", and it occurred to me: I don't recall Tara ever actually saying she (or her mother) was a witch, or a wicca. Yes, she first shows up at the U.C. Sunnydale Wicca group, and she does magic, and *Willow* keeps calling her a wicca, but what has Tara actually said? So, I went to http://www.psyche.kn-bremen.de (a great comprehensive Buffy transcript resource, and they're in Germany and so don't seem too worried about Fox) and checked the episode transcripts. Tara's only in a couple of scenes that seem relevant: 1: From HUSH: === 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." === Okay, so Tara's Mom was "like Willow", which could be interpreted to mean "a powerful witch." Or it could just mean "powerful". And Tara is awkward about describing her own magical history/abilities, and never claims to be a witch, or a wicca, or even "like Willow". 2: From WHO ARE YOU: === Willow: Tara. Tara, this is Buffy, only really this time. Tara: Hi. Willow: Taras a really powerful witch. Tara: Not really. Willow: No, really. She knew right away that you werent you. So we connected with the nether realms to find out what happened. And we conjured this. === Here, Tara denies being "a really powerful witch," and seems extra embarrassed about it. Perhaps "not really" means not just "not really powerful", but rather "not really a witch"? All of which ties into the "Tara (and perhaps her Mom) as supernatural entity" theory, which IMO remains the most likely explanation for The Case of the Sabotaged Spell. Thoughts? - -Allen W. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #64 ****************************