From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #82 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, April 17 2000 Volume 02 : Number 082 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/superstar [meredith ] b/comments4/16 ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/faith/willow ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/theodicy/suburban ["Donald G. Keller" ] b/sun-hero ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/comments4/16 [GHighPine@aol.com] Marvel and Buffy [GHighPine@aol.com] b/littlesister? ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: b/littlesister? [GHighPine@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:29:39 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: b/superstar Hi! AllenW wondered: > Now here's something I don't understand: why watch one and not the >other? You're not the only person I've seen who watches BUFFY but >not ANGEL (haven't seen the converse), but I don't really get it. They're >on right after each other, they're set in the same universe, they tend to >influence each other, they have similar creative teams, etc. Is it a >matter of not having that extra hour in the week, or do you find ANGEL >actively unappealing? Yes. It's boring. And David Boreanaz *still* can't act. Besides, I've found myself out of town (or on a plane heading out of town) most of the Tuesdays when a new Buffy/Angel pairing has aired this season, and for the purpose of keeping my tapes properly cataloged it's much easier to only tape Buffy and not Angel. Whenever I've taped Angel, I haven't been inspired to watch it before the next new Buffy has aired, so I've ended up just taping over it unwatched anyway. Maybe this summer I'll be able to catch up a bit. Just my opinion. :) +==========================================================================+ | 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: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:10:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/comments4/16 Well. So I =was= wrong about the Little Sister/Little Miss Muffet thing. How very interesting. As others have been saying, "730" almost certainly means 2x365, meaning two years from the 3rd-season finale. (To me this means that's when the situation comes to a head, not necessarily the advent of this new--entity.) Incidentally, I'm not really sanguine that the series is going to last beyond five seasons; numerologically, the season finale of the 5th season will be Episode #100 (4x22+12), which sounds like too good a place to stop. But I could (as usual) be wrong. But here's my question about this new piece of evidence: why did =both= Buffy and Faith dream about it/her? (Note that neither one has mentioned it while awake.) It's something that Buffy as Slayer #1 needs to know about; but why Faith? Is this going to be an issue such that they will need to join forces to oppose it? (Can we in fact hope for Faith Redeemed?) (Memo to Meredith: saw a bit of the =Xena= rerun last night with Callisto-the-Angel. Certainly if we can buy Callisto Redeemed we can buy Faith Redeemed, should it happen.) Oh, by the way, re "The Yoko Factor": the possibility no one's mentioned so far is that Buffy herself may be "Yoko"...in relation to the Initiative (Riley and his fellow soldiers). Seems the most likely to me, especially given Forrest's attitude (viz. the scene where Riley leaves in "This Year's Girl"). To answer some questions: the scene where the Mayor checks off "become invincible" on his list is from "Bad Girls"; Faith joins his team at the end of the next episode, "Consequences." "Bad Girls"/"Consequences" were Episodes #14-15 of the 3rd season, corresponding roughly to "Surprise"/"Innocence" (#13-14 of the 2nd season), and I'd argue "The 'I' In Team"/"Goodbye Iowa" (#13-14 of the 4th season); all of these crux points being where "things fall apart." Although its nature is more like "The Wish"/"The Zeppo"/"Doppelgangland," the position of "Superstar" in the season-structure corresponds exactly to "Enemies": Episode #17, the one which breaks up approximately two months (late February to late April) of no new episodes. I agree with the general consensus that Adam (so far) hasn't been that interesting; certainly not on the same level as the Mayor or Angelus. But note that they've made a very big deal about the fact that he's nearly invincible (whipped Buffy easily), and that, given his "nuclear" nature, it may in fact take a "big bang" to do him in. (Rocket launchers and "volcanoes" not being enough?) I'm also not as pessimistic as Gayle about whether we're going to hear more about the demons' fear of "314" (i.e. Adam, as it turned out), or chaos (which Adam is interested in), or Ethan Rayne. Meredith: You make an excellent point about the ineffectiveness of Jonathan's "double," the monster; if Jonathan is super-competent, it only makes sense that the monster would be super-=in=competent; scary, but easy to elude--and relatively easy for "Betty" to destroy on her own (though Jonathan actually delivered the coup de grace, interestingly enough--an arcane form of "suicide"?). And to recap our phone conversation: I hadn't noticed that it was raining all the time during "Superstar." But it is a situation worth pondering (note that the last scene is in bright sunlight). Remembering the idea that rain (as in Faith's dream) means renewal/transformation, it would make sense that in a "world transformed" it might rain more often. Here's the corollary: what other time has it most prominently rained in Sunnydale? "Surprise"; Buffy and Angel emerge from the sewers after escaping from the Judge into a downpour, and go to Angel's where they make love; and it's still raining when Angel stumbles out into the alley where he's "transformed" by losing his soul. Also worth a mention, of course, is the snowstorm at the end of "Amends," which is a kind of benediction/transformation (giving Angel new hope that he has a purpose in the world). David: I have some notes here about comments I wanted to make like a month ago, and since they still seem relevant... I see your point about Xander's "sitcom" nature; he does spend a lot of time snapping off wisecracks at others' expense (as Cordelia was reduced to at this point in the 3rd season). But note that he is also the butt of such comments, not only people =still= harping on his "Zeppo" nature, but things like Willow's uncharacteristically withering line in "Something Blue": "'Oh, I live in a basement.' =That's= dire!" I think he's also still serving the purpose of being Everyman/Joss-Whedon-surrogate. It certainly is a flaw of this not-perfect show that they sometimes lose their way for half a season or more as to what to do with a character, and my qualifications here shouldn't be construed as =contradicting= your point, just ameliorating it. =Really= important point about Faith's turning around in the campus scene in "This Year's Girl" echoing Anya turning around demon-faced in "The Wish." It's the same moment; and the same moment as the "Hi, Honey, I'm home" moment I pointed out in "Halloween." (But it's not the same moment as the "Hi, guys/Miss me?" in "When She Was Bad" because in the thrill/chill balance that one's all thrill.) Other similar (though not identical) moments are those when we learn Buffy is present when her voice comes in from off-camera (most recently at the beginning of "I Will Remember You" on =Angel=). Call it the "Oh #@%$" Moment. I just want to emphasize, by the way, how great a scene that campus confrontation is. The way that Faith has regained her usually-ebullient self-confidence and cheerful menace (after being a little lost upon first waking up); the way Faith's attitude cows Buffy just a little (as it often does; as Cordelia's used to; as Jonathan's did in "Superstar"); the series of emotions that Buffy goes through (wariness, attempted sympathy, returned sarcastic menace, a few other shades); the way Willow is equally wary, but not afraid (she =could= have run away); the moment where Faith, without breaking tone, threatens Willow (the last time I watched it it seemed to me that Buffy flickered a glance at Willow and gave her away, but it's equally likely that Faith's Slayer-sense was aware of her anyway); Buffy's mock-childish "Uh-oh!" when the cops arrive; Faith's grandstanding demolition of the two cops as she escapes. One of the best scenes of the season. Anyway...the import of what I've called the "Oh #@%$" Moments is to underline the old mythological idea that the dividing line between warriors and the monsters they fight is very thin (as Angel/Angelus proves, as Faith proves, as even Buffy proves; the tone in which vampires say "Slayer!" is very similar to the tone in which human beings say "vampire!"). Note that Willow has to =remind= Tara that Faith is not =technically= a monster. Re the sidekick issue...I see what you mean, and I agree, that in a sense Buffy functions as Willow's sidekick on intellectual (in class), technological (computers, etc.), and magical matters; and Willow as Buffy's sidekick on matters of force and tactics. But I think it can be argued that Willow has really grown into a more equal position (and she feels that way too, witness her vehement "I'm not your sidekick!" in "Fear Itself" this season); with the two of them what we have now is a "sword and sorcery" pair typical of other species of fantasy. Thanks for the comments on my old piece; yes, the whole idea of picking the scenes to comment on was because they were typical (though particularly striking of their type). My not-entirely-clear agenda in that piece was to at least make a start towards describing the sort of structural "grammar" and "syntax" the show typically practices. There's a lot to be said about such aspects as: how episodes begin (dream sequences quite frequently), how episodes end (as often with a joke as with a shock), how they break for commercials, how they crosscut scenes, or construct parallel sets of scenes, or crosscut various emotional affects =within= scenes. A large subject indeed. Oh, there's no question that the fundamental difference between =Heathers= and =Buffy= is that =Heathers= is a (very black) comedy (with some dramatic scenes, principally the climax in the school basement), while Buffy is a drama with many comedic scenes (even whole episodes). But although the emphasis is different, to me it feels like a very similar mix. This has gone on long enough. I've got a bunch of pent-up stuff, though, so More to Follow. (P.S. Anyone else seen Robia La Morte's dialogueless McDonald's commercial?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:13:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/faith/willow Two small but interesting issues that occurred to me today. The first concerns Faith's attitude towards Giles. It seems to me, thinking back, that--as much as she behaved for anyone (besides the Mayor, of course)--Faith behaved for Giles. She took an instant liking to him in "Faith, Hope, and Trick" (which rather surprised Buffy), and was actually a good little Slayer for several episodes. She did go along with Mrs. Poste with minimal grousing, but ended up regretting it. Of course, she never had any use for Wesley (nor did Buffy, but Buffy tolerated him, barely). Both of them followed Wesley's orders only when they were going to do whatever it was anyway (as Buffy put it). The scene that struck my memory, however, was in "Doppelgangland," where Faith comes back from running with "Princess Margaret" (= Wesley), and speaks quite sarcastically about the Council's regimen she and Buffy are following. Giles reprimands her in his gentle-but- firm way, and Faith, meekly but whinily, replies that she's on board. And also note that, after she and Buffy argue for at least the third time about what to do about Alan Finch's murder, Faith refuses to let Buffy go to Giles...then goes to Giles herself. (We should be clear that in =both= these cases Faith is dissembling: in the first case playing along with Giles/Wesley/Buffy while already having joined the Mayor's side; in the latter she went to Giles with a baldfaced lie, that Buffy had committed the murder. The point being that Faith has enough respect for Giles to try and fool him.) The other issue, which occurred to me again because it happened during the same span of episodes, is Willow's attitude towards Wesley. (I don't think I've mentioned this here before.) I had occasion, some months ago, to wonder how Willow felt about Wesley, and actually skimmed through the episodes from "Bad Girls" (where Wesley is introduced) to the end of the 3rd season, and discovered--much to my surprise--that with two exceptions, there =is= no evidence (which in itself is evidence, of course). Willow doesn't address Wesley; doesn't even mention him; is frequently absent from library scenes where he is present. Most notably, in "Consequences" when Willow and Buffy have their reconciliation scene and discuss the problem of Faith, Willow urges Buffy to go to Giles (not Wesley). Kind of a "if you don't have something good to say..." situation. The two exceptions are as follows: in "Enemies," during a library scene, Willow is delivering to Giles a report on accessing the Mayor's files; Cordelia interrups, snarkily, to remind everyone that Wesley is running the meeting, and Willow finishes her report to Wesley (sort of). And in "Choices," as the "mission impossible" team gets out of the van, Wesley suggests they synchronize watches; Buffy and Willow show him their empty wrists (a hilarious moment), and Willow adds insult to injury by suggesting sarcastically that they count "one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two." And that is, in fact, the =only= time Willow actually addresses Wesley. Oh, while we're at it, let's follow through on the implication of my post-title and trace the course of how Willow and Faith related to one another. They liked each other at first (Faith saying Willow and Xander were "the kick," and Willow taking Faith's side against Buffy[!] that "you're not finding the fun, B...uffy") and worked together as a team hunting down the escaped Werewolf Oz in "Beauty and the Beasts." They didn't have much contact after that through "Revelations," after which Faith was mostly gone until "Bad Girls," and Willow (as I said) was not around the library as much. And by the end of "Consequences" Faith's deeds had turned Willow so much against her that she wondered aloud why Faith shouldn't be locked up. And in that "Doppelgangland" scene, Faith speaks to Willow about trying to break into the Mayor's files, but Willow (already in a bad mood after Principal Snyder pressured her to help Percy, and having the excuse of concentrating on what she was doing), is barely civil. After which things got worse as Faith's turncoating came clear, which led to Willow's dressing-down of Faith in "Choices." (Which also showed that Willow is not afraid of Faith, though she has respect for Faith's being willing and able to kill her.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/theodicy/suburban "THEODICY A word coined by Gottfried Leibnitz (1646-1716) to give a name to the doctrine that argued that a GOD who permitted EVIL to exist could not be just. Basically, evil exists as a measure--in this best of all possible worlds--of good. The moment-to-moment and ultimate function of evil--a PARODY of good--is to make good visible. The tapestry of the world as it exists to our various perceptions--sunrise and sunset, the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate--is to be cherished, defended, maintained; it is a STORY whose warp and woof all need telling. God is, therefore, merciful. "It is easy to understand theodicy as a wisdom of winners, and there are certainly many tasteless moments, throughout world literature, in which humble folk are praised for doffing their caps to those who abuse them. Though the politics of fantasy writers are various, FANTASY as a genre--with its inherent bias towards stories focused upon a RECOGNITION of that which has always existed and is now gloriously restored--is peculiarly prone to bouts of thinking (and unthinking) theodicy. GENRE FANTASY in particular excessively valorizes hierarchy, ancient lineages..." - --=The Encyclopedia of Fantasy=, entry written by editor John Clute I wanted to make clear to Jennifer that my pique on the question of "suburban fantasy" was not directed at her (or Ken, really, either); though she agreed with some of the points that were made, she defended herself ably and made some interesting points (to which I will return). But this issue is a sore point for me, and here's why. Some years ago I was at a party standing by while Greg Feeley and John Clute had a conversation. One or the other brought up Michael Swanwick's =The Iron Dragon's Daughter=, and both applauded Swanwick for his refreshing portrait of the elves as brutal, condescending oppressors of the lower classes (humans and lesser nonhumans), which they contrasted sharply with Emma Bull (and her ilk, they implied), who thought the elves were just swell and wanted to be like them. "It's theodicy," Clute said, to which Feeley agreed; what they meant was that certain kinds of fantasy (Bull's included) =approved= of the class system and would be glad to reap the benefits of being top dog. (Let's note that Steven Brust, Bull's cohort and sometime collaborator, is a Marxist.) Anyway...I was so astonished by this line of reasoning that I was unable to utter a word, but that conversation has stuck with me because there's =something= wrong with their argument, and I'm still not sure what. (By the way, I greatly admire Swanwick's work in general, and =The Iron Dragon's Daughter= as well, but I never warmed to it because it is so =relentlessly= anti-Romantic.) (Let me acknowledge also, by the way, that Clute--who wrote both the Bull entry and the Swanwick entry in the =Encyclopedia=--does not use the word THEODICY in either one; furthermore, his entry on Bull is pretty positive, and refers to =War for the Oaks= as URBAN FANTASY.) Jennifer: Before I start agreeing with you, let me ask you one question: why does Crowley get a pass for writing Nice about the City of Dreadful Night while Emma Bull does not? (Apart from the fact that Crowley's a much greater writer.) Oh, also: Lin Carter??? I accept the idea of "glitz" literature, and yes, that's exactly what my hypothetical upper-class story would be. And it makes sense to me that "suburban" is about a group of buddies and "urban" is about strangers. (Though in some urban environments-- New York is a particular case--groups of buddies do cohere. What's a group of mobsters, after all?) And it also makes sense, the point about Pinkwater's characters going to the city to have their strangest adventures. (This is also true of a novel by his wife Jill Pinkwater that I just read). So by your more positive rubric, =Buffy= certainly is suburban, but with monsters, and yes that does make a difference. It's not =fantasy= that adds grit, but horror. I think one thing working here is: do you think you might die any minute? That's more urban than suburban, but also true of suburban Sunnydale-with-monsters. But I disagree with David that there's a =big= difference between fantasy and horror--or science fiction for that matter; to me the three genres are pretty close together, three instances of the same kind of thing. Or maybe it's simply that =Buffy= to me is as much (mythic) fantasy as horror, and that's contouring the way I think about it. David: Good presentation about "boxes" and how they are only clear retroactively (as the concept "fantasy" in the Tolkienian sense certainly was). I'm not sure I like the label "indigenous fantasy," but I'm willing to be further convinced. Funny you should mention D.H. Lawrence in re lower-class reverse classism; tell you why in a minute. I think you're right, but I think it goes back even further than that, to Dickens, say, or even Cervantes, where Sancho Panza is the salt-of-the-earth realist in contrast to the head-in-the-clouds Quixote. It's probably even older than that. Anyway...a commentary on this whole question turned up in a very odd place, and I quote snippets from a many-page exposition: "D.H. Lawrence is the only English novelist worth reading...No doubt when you have been born to the purple and never had to do a day's honest work, you prefer worshipping frivolousness to facing the eternal moral questions that Cromwell and D.H. Lawrence faced, in their slightly different ways to be sure...The trouble with =Winnie- the-Pooh= is that it constitutes a vast betrayal of Life...there is not a single element in =Winnie-the-Pooh= that touches on real Life. Not one character is from the Midlands, not one is of working-class origin; and there is not even a coal-mine on the ideal landscape where they jump and play...simply, there is no art but Life, and there is no Life without Midland coal-mines...A work of fiction should, I believe, inculcate sound moral values (hatred of the Establishment) by seeing to it that the deserving characters crush the undeserving ones..." - --"Another Book to Cross Off Your List" by "Simon Lacerous" from Frederic Crews' =The Pooh Perplex= This is pitiless parody, of course; but I'm not inclined to let this mindset off the hook. This is from Frederick Crews' best-known book, a series of parodies of academic styles in the form of essays on Milne; and it's quite hilarious. (Having read Crews' more recent books on Freud, and running across my copy of this, I grabbed it.) It does make one cringe once in a while, though, because one finds that one writes in some =other= ways he lampoons here... When I first read this years ago, I had no idea who "Simon Lacerous" was supposed to be; I'd never even =heard= of F.R. Leavis, in fact. Over the years I gradually came to realize who he was (read a book in which he devoted 100 willfull-wrong pages to T.S. Eliot's =Four Quartets=, for example) and how fair/unfair Crews' parody was. And just the other day I was reading bits of =Literary Theory= by Terry Eagleton (also a Marxist), including a passage on Leavis, which revealed his lower-middle-class origins who got his education the old-fashioned way (he earned it), and detailed his contempt for the aristocrats up the ladder from him, but also his condescension toward the working class. I think we can safely refer to this anti-theodicy, Feeley/Clute attitude as "Leavisite." Also interesting is the following passage: "...'The Bad Anthropology Film Festival,' a genre of film and television in which the character of an anthropologist, folklorist, or other social scientist exists merely to deliver a small lecturette on the history and lore of the phenomenon under investigation, then to conclude that 'There's nothing to be worried about; it's only folklorrrrAAAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!'and to die a horrible death in the clutches of the Beast..." [Joss Whedon has stated explicitly that Giles was created as exactly this kind of character; of course, Giles survives becase he knows there's =always= something to worry about...--DGK] "Bad Anthropology is generally an antibourgeois genre: the working classes already know how to ward off evil by reason of their bad education, their attachment to 'superstition' and other modes of 'faulty reasoning,' and their general closeness to the seamy side of life whether on the mean streets or the manure-strewn farmyard; the upper classes, for their part, by reason of their innate aristocracy, their complete disregard of the fruits of their expensive educations, and their blood connections to the land, were born for the express purpose of ridding that land of horrors. It is the middle clases, with their shopkeeper mentality and their willingness to risk their lives for sordid cash, who really get it in the neck, and their progeny--who make the mistake of taking their education seriously and humorlessly, who think they know it all and insist on telling it to everyone within earshot, who inhabit the fabled Ivory Tower so far removed from everything useful in life-- provide the monster with its tastiest morsels." - --Leslie Jones, "'Last Week We Had An Omen': The Mythological X- Files," from ="Deny All Knowledge": Reading "The X-Files"= I put this together yesterday, but didn't send it off; having a little more time to think about the issue, this I think is the bottom line: as I tried to argue previously (and got shot down by Jennifer), we're talking about fantasy here, which is about =inner= experience. Here's how Jung conceptualizes it: in mythology (of which fantasy is a subset) the ego (by which he means the conscious mind) is the hero of the inner drama; and so the stories mythology tells are about heroes, kings/queens/princes/princesses, and this in fact represents a healthy ego with self-esteem. (Buffy has superpowers, remember.) Children and the insane imagine themselves frequently as of higher station than they are. Fantasy about the upper class thus has =nothing to do= with real-world class systems; and attempting to deconstruct it along class-analysis lines is really kind of irrelevant. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 20:19:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/sun-hero Found an amusing typo the other day. I was reading Otto Rank's =The Myth of the Birth of the Hero= (Rank being another associate of Freud's who broke away and followed his own theoretical bent, about the same time as Jung did, though at a much younger age). In this early work he frequently cites Freud's =The Interpretation of Dreams= under its original German title =Traumdeutung=. Only one footnote prints it as =Tramdeutung=. =The Interpretation of Trolleys=, I love it. (Might be an even juicier pun in German; Meredith?) Anyway...Rank, like Lord Raglan (whose book =The Hero= I also have), is concerned with the striking correspondences among the various myth-biographies of heroes (and covers Moses and Jesus as well); along the way, he implies (though doesn't state clearly) that the whole idea of the stork bringing babies is a lingering mytheme from the many hero-tales where the baby hero is put to sea (or in a river) in a box (or a basket) and is saved by an animal (a she-wolf, as in Romulus & Remus, or a doe, or a bird). What I was up to, of course, was searching for correspondences with the Buffy "myth." That set of mythemes does not apply, of course; nor does the idea that her real father was a god (we don't know =where= she gets her supernatural powers) or her mother a virgin, etc. But consider this: one of the persistent mythemes is that the hero is raised away from his real parents, by foster-parents of low degree. Still not true of Buffy, since she lived with her mother until college; =but= her father is certainly conspicuously absent, and furthermore so is Faith's (we know =nothing= about him), and Kendra was taken away from her parents at such a young age that she didn't remember them! Then there's the mytheme about the hero's father the god trying to kill him (which is why he's spirited away to foster-parents). Not =strictly= true of Buffy...but consider how her real father rejects her (as a "Nightmare" and then in "Helpless"), how her father- surrogate Giles threatens her well-being (also in "Helpless"; I've dealt before with the question of other threatening surrogate fathers in that episode); how her father/lover Angel turns on her (and later rejects her); how her prospective stepfather "Ted" threatens and strikes her. Adds up to much the same idea of a "murderous father." This is all notes towards a treatment of the theme. Consider also a couple interesting passages from John Kerr's =A Most Dangerous Method=, the book about Freud, Jung, and Sabina Spielrein I mentioned before. These concern both Jung's and Spielrein's writings. "...the story of the sun-hero's death, his journey through the Underworld, and his ultimate resurrection was the most widespread in the ancient world. Usually the saga was modeled astrologically, with the hero represented by the sun, which sets in the Western seas, journeys beneath the ocean during the night, and rises reborn in the East at dawn. Often, the sun-hero was accompanied by a companion with whom he had to struggle at some point. Often, too, the sun- hero's consort was a moon-goddess who was said to entice him to his doom....For Jung, the whole saga was readily interpretable in terms of introversion, with the dangerous moon-goddess in particular as a symbol for the regressively charged inner image of the mother from whom the hero had to free himself." [p. 302] [Remember that in the Buffy myth you have to swap the gender labels. I read both the "companion of struggle" and the "moon-goddess" (The Day-Girl and the Night-Boy, remember?) as Angel. To make it even clearer, think of Willow, whose Angel-equivalent, Oz, is a werewolf, i.e. under the sway of the moon.--DGK] "...what...occupied [Jung] was the regressively charged image of the incestuous mother [or wish-mother, as Spielrein elsewhere expressed it], that gorgon who would keep the hero trapped in the Underworld. All interpretive roads constantly led back to her, identified as the "destructive" or "terrible" mother. Tree symbolism ultimately signified the son's yearning to be reunited with her. The same with fish symbolism. The same with serpent symbolism. Themes of dismemberment signified her destructive powers. Themes of death and rebirth signified the son's ambivalent yearning to be reborn through her. The dragon was a symbol for her. And so forth." [p. 331] Angel represents for Buffy (the sun-hero) exactly that sort of figure: the wish-father, the "incestuous" lover (also remember that their love is "unnatural"--"the forbidden love of all time," as Cordelia only half-sarcastically put it--because it's between Slayer and vampire) whom she needs to kill to save the world from Hell. (Though she does go to the Underworld, dies, and is reborn during "Prophecy Girl" in the 1st season, Hell comes to her in the 2nd season finale.) Angel is also, like Cordelia, like Faith, a "shadow" who represents the part of her she needs to put behind her. There's a lot more of this stuff; certainly it seems to me that the vampires and demons (some of them snakelike) Buffy fights are simply historically later images that correspond to the dragons (some of them snakelike) and other creatures fought by heroes in earlier myths. (Just discovered the other day that one of Hercules' epithets was "Snake-killer.") More reading necessary; where's my copy of =The Hero with a Thousand Faces=... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 21:11:28 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments4/16 In a message dated 4/16/00 5:13:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << Oh, by the way, re "The Yoko Factor": the possibility no one's mentioned so far is that Buffy herself may be "Yoko"...in relation to the Initiative (Riley and his fellow soldiers). >> I think you are right. Buffy is Yoko. (Maybe not the only Yoko, though.) And you should get credit for figuring that out first. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:20:53 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Marvel and Buffy Have a few minutes, so I might as well write a bit on what Donald requested a while back on the Marvel influence on BUFFY. I'm surprised that I am apparently the only one here who is familiar with it, and since my Marvel reading spanned approximately the years 1963-1966 (at which point it was abruptly brought to a halt by my mother's raiding our comic book collection) I don't know much about what happened in the Marvelverse in the last 34 years. I do know that other comic publishers, especially DC, became very influenced by the Marvel style over time, so later generations of comic readers probably are less conscious of the Marvel style and what Marvel really contributed to comics culture. But when my sister and I discovered Marvel, it was very new and innovative and radically different in style from any other comics. Discovering Marvel back then was a shock and a revelation, and I will necessarily talk about things as they were then, when Marvel was unique unto itself, and before its influence started to permeate other comic book publishers. Marvel's influence on the BUFFY style is very obvious to me. BUFFY could easily be a Marvel comic. Buffy is almost a cousin to Spiderman, Marvel's main lone superhero. Basically, while DC's superheroes were literally or metaphorically otherworldly, like Superman and kin from Krypton, Marvel took the approach "What if superheroes were ordinary people like you and me? Living in the real world, trying to balance their superhero duties with the same mundane problems you and I have to deal with?" Spiderman, like Buffy, was a high school student, with family problems, problems relating to the opposite sex, money problems, problems when his superhero duties got in the way of studying for tests. He didn't want to be a superhero; he became one accidentally, and eventually reluctantly accepted his destiny and his responsibility. He had guilt when he failed his responsibilities, like Buffy; lots of angst, lots of self-questioning, self-doubt, occasional resentment of his special calling. Marvel tried to make its characters into real people you could identify with. Its approach was that the superhero was Everyman and that superpowers were not necessarily a blessing. The heroes' emotional life was central to the stories. The world was as close as possible to the world we live in, with the addition of superheroes and supervillains. Marvel was also heavy on the snappy wisecracks and witty dialogue, unlike the stodgy dialogue of DC and other comics. And their letters pages were funny. Even the credits were funny sometimes. I see Marvel's influence as more one of style than substance, but in one important way it influences the substance of BUFFY. Donald has tried to reconcile Buffy's ordinary origins with the extraordinary origins of most mythological heroes. Marvel's heroes were relentlessly, purposely as ordinary and mundane as possible. Some were mutants, but most were originally very ordinary people from the most ordinary circumstances. This was deliberate -- it was central to the Marvel style, almost a trademark of their style. And another key to Marvel style was the constant juxtaposition of real, ordinary mundane concerns with the fantastic elements. Getting your costume cleaned after a battle. Failing an algebra test because you were out all night saving the world. Being unable to get a snack after a battle because your costume has no pockets, hence you have no change with which to buy some fast food. There was also ongoing soap operas about the heroes' personal lives, especially wrt to romance and family life. There are, however, two areas in which BUFFY and Marvel differ. First, Marvel was very, um, "Teutonic" in its attitude toward girl heroes. (The only girl heroes were on teams, one token girl per team, and they rarely did real fighting.) Second, the soap opera elements (dilemmas re romantic / family life) were pretty static. The situation hardly seemed to change from one year to the next (they did eventually progress the situations, but at a snail's pace). If BUFFY were a Marvel comic, we'd probably still be in the same static situation with the Buffy /Angel romance that we were in Season 1. So BUFFY is =much= faster paced in its arcs than Marvel was -- more seems to happen in a month of BUFFY than two years of Marvel. And BUFFY has maybe a little more raciness of tone than did the Marvel of 1963. (No hint of sex in those days, save the women's skintight costumes.) But otherwise, BUFFY seems very close to Marvel in style, and the influence of Marvel on Joss's formative years seems obvious to me. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:57:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: b/littlesister? Well, I =thought= I was going to sleep... ...but I was attacked by a stray thought. Remember the young girl chanting the nursery rhyme about the Gentlemen (and holding their box) in the dream in "Hush"? Could she be Little Sister/Little Miss Muffett? (She =looks= like she could be Buffy's little sister...) And the fact that she "visited" "in person" with the information Buffy needed to stop the Gentlemen would then be an initial hint of the sort of entity she might be. Certainly no more outlandish a theory than some things that have proved true. And while I'm here (not that we need any more contribution from me right now), I'll relate that I re-watched "The 'I' in Team" and "Goodbye Iowa" (the "things fall apart" "2-parter")(too many "quote marks" going on "here") tonight. I remember people remarking that that whole exposition of Adam's was very boring, but it seems to me on re-examination to have a lot of information in it. Since that point, what with the Faith and Jonathan interruptions, we have only gotten a few more facts about Adam...and =nothing= more about Riley, and why =he's= so important to The Project (a.k.a. 314), and why he and Adam are linked. There's a lot we still don't know. Two thoughts occur to me. The first is that, after we finally met the Mayor in "Homecoming" last year, someone on GEnie said, in effect, "So now we know the Mayor is evil. Whoopee. We knew that already. This is boring." My reply was "There's still a lot we don't know about the Mayor." Which, obviously, was true. Well, there's still a lot we don't know about Adam, or Riley. Also. Gayle made the point, when I pointed out Acathla's late appearance, that Acathla was only a "prop demon," and the latter 2nd season was "really" "about" (there I "go" again) Angel(us). True. And in a sense the Mayor was only a prop demon, and the latter 3rd season was really about Faith. Could it be that Adam is only a prop demon, and that the latter 4th season is really about Riley? =That= would be more interesting, I submit. I really shouldn't write posts this late... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:29:51 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/littlesister? In a message dated 4/16/00 9:58:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << Could she be Little Sister/Little Miss Muffett? (She =looks= like she could be Buffy's little sister...) And the fact that she "visited" "in person" with the information Buffy needed to stop the Gentlemen would then be an initial hint of the sort of entity she might be. >> Possibly. I was struck by her resemblance to Buffy and don't think it was accidental, but I thought she was just intended to look like Buffy as a little girl. << Also. Gayle made the point, when I pointed out Acathla's late appearance, that Acathla was only a "prop demon," and the latter 2nd season was "really" "about" (there I "go" again) Angel(us). True. And in a sense the Mayor was only a prop demon, and the latter 3rd season was really about Faith. Could it be that Adam is only a prop demon, and that the latter 4th season is really about Riley? =That= would be more interesting, I submit. >> Definitely more interesting, and I think it is true, too. Adam isn't really a character. The third season really was about Faith, and the Mayor was only a supporting character, but he was an =interesting= supporting character. (I wouldn't consider the Mayor to be "only" a prop character.) Riley's role parallels Faith's. Adam's may parallel the Mayor's (it looked before as though Walsh paralleled the Mayor). If so, I have the feeling that Adam may be leading to an even bigger explosion. ("Prop character" is the term I used, btw -- it's a role not confined to demons.) Gayle ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #82 ****************************