From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #66 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Wednesday, March 22 2000 Volume 02 : Number 066 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: stillpt-digest V2 #65 ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] Urban and Suburban Fantasy/Houghton/Stevenson ["Jennifer Stevenson" ] Re: B/ New episode descriptions for 4/4/00 [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:56:51 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #65 From my post, and then Meredith's: > >Emma Bull's War for the Oaks is not, nor is it particularly urban; > > What makes it "not particularly urban"? It takes place in a city, doesn't > it? Or am I thinking of things way too shallowly here? Well, Minneapolis isn't really very urban. (Ducking for cover.) It's almost suburban in feel, a feel that Bull captures--that not-really-small-town feel, anonymous (like a city) but squeaky clean and wholesome. The most important scenes I recall from that book (haven't read it since it came out) take place at a (working!) public fountain, in a conservatory, in an apartment, in a rock studio, in a nightclub, and in a park--a big, sprawly, rough-coated unmanicured forest-preservey park. Maybe I just know Minneapolis too well. But it doesn't feel like a City to me. It's too new, too clean, too polite, and too small. Town, maybe. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:07:01 -0600 From: "Jennifer Stevenson" Subject: Urban and Suburban Fantasy/Houghton/Stevenson I'm forwarding this from Ken, and then my reply. He's at some damned inaccessible e-mail right now. The quoted > material is from his post to me. My comments are below them. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Jennifer Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:12 AM Subject: Re: stillpt-digest V2 #65 > > Jennifer, > > While I agree with your summary, I have to point out that "urban" fantasy--the > way The Usual Suspects generally define it--is synonymous with "non-agrarian or > idyllic." People are polite, living conditions of the poor look like the > jig/reel/somegoddamnedIrishthing scene in _Titantic_, but the roads are paved, > multiple families may live in the same dwelling, and there is a class of > not-rich people who have leisure time. > > I personally would have called it "suburban fantasies," but the monniker was > applied by those who would never consider themselves suburban. (Compare the > environment of _The Sun, the Moon, and the Stars_ with, for instance, the first > 59 pages of _Dhalgren_, and tell me which one is honestly "urban.") Just because they ain't pastoral doesn't mean we have to call them urban. If the real jungle can be replaced with an asphalt one, then critspeak can certainly acknowledge suburbia. I don't have any truck with _The Sun, The Moon, and the Stars_. It is too bloody sanitary to be anything, IMO. (Ouch! Nobody tell Steve I said that please.) And who has time to read more than 12 pages of _Dahlgren_? People in places like Minneapolis have lots of reasons to call their home a city, but that doesn't make fantasy about it "urban". > "Urban fantasy," for better or worse (your mileage probably varies), has the > feel that it takes place more in Skokie or the better half of New Rochelle (say, > Dick van Dyke Show territory) than Chicago or Manhattan. > > The territory may be the map, but the map is only there to show that it's not on > a farm or in a woods. I disagree. Urban fantasy takes place in Ankh-Morpork, which definitely has no relation whatever to Skokie, and lots to do with Chicago and Manhattan. Urban fantasy takes place in the City of Dreadful Night, or the Tim Burton Gotham. It does not take place in The Mews At Windsor Heights. That's suburban. If we can invent "urban fantasy" we can admit that some of it is only "suburban fantasy". - -Jennifer ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:27:02 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Huff Subject: B/ New episode descriptions for 4/4/00 Here are the episode descriptions for the new Buffy and Angel descriptions for April 4th. S P O I L E R S P A C E Buffy -- "Superstar" Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) must put aside the turmoil she feels about Riley and Faith's (Marc Blucas, guest star Eliza Dushku) night of passion to investigate why a former nerd (guest star Danny Strong) is being feted as a superhero. (Danny Strong = Jonathon and I'm glad to see him returning) Angel -- "Eternity" A smitten Angel (David Boreanaz) reveals his true identity to a young actress (guest star Tamara Gorski), who takes desperate measures to seize eternal youth and beauty. (Tamara Gorski played "Morrigan" in the Hercules/Xena series. The Irish redhead that fell in love with Herc.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:25:25 EST From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: B/ New episode descriptions for 4/4/00 In a message dated 3/21/00 8:30:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, thuff_007@yahoo.com writes: << Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) must put aside the turmoil she feels about Riley and Faith's (Marc Blucas, guest star Eliza Dushku) night of passion to investigate why a former nerd (guest star Danny Strong) is being feted as a superhero. (Danny Strong = Jonathon and I'm glad to see him returning) >> Me too. This makes me think of the ST:TNG episode about the crewman named Barclay who was a nerd in real life but created a holodeck world in which he was an adored hero. I wonder if it is something like that -- nerd creates something to fulfill his fantasies. The obvious thought would be that he used some magical influence, but maybe it will be an alternate universe, either that Buffy stumbles into or that bleeds into the "real" world. Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #66 ****************************